Bills Digest No.
23, 2021–22
PDF version [511KB]
Matthew Thomas and James Haughton
Social Policy Section
18 October 2021
This Digest replaces an earlier version dated 15
October 2021
Contents
Purpose of the Bill
Structure of the Bill
Background
Committee consideration
Position of major interest groups
Policy position of non-government
parties
Financial implications
Statement of Compatibility with Human
Rights
Key issues and provisions
Date introduced: 1
September 2021
House: House of
Representatives
Portfolio: Indigenous
Australians
Commencement: The
day after Royal Assent or various dates as set out in the body of this Bills
Digest.
Links: The links to the Bill,
its Explanatory Memorandum and second reading speech can be found on the
Bill’s home page, or through the Australian
Parliament website.
When Bills have been passed and have received Royal Assent,
they become Acts, which can be found at the Federal Register of Legislation
website.
All hyperlinks in this Bills Digest are correct as
at October 2021.
Table 1 was amended on 18 October 2021 to provide a more precise description of participants.
Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of the Social Security Legislation Amendment
(Remote Engagement Program) Bill 2021 is to:
- amend
the Social
Security Act 1991 and the Social Security
(Administration) Act 1999 (the Administration Act) to establish
a new remote engagement program payment to be paid to job seekers who
participate in a remote engagement placement and
- amend
the Age
Discrimination Act 2004, the Social Security Act 1991 and the Administration
Act to remove provisions that establish or refer to the now non-operational
Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) Scheme and related CDEP Scheme
Participant Supplement.
Structure of the Bill
The Bill consists of one Schedule made up of four Parts.
Part 1 establishes the remote engagement program payment
and Part 2 contains contingent amendments related to the new payment.
Similarly, Part 3 comprises the main amendments that remove provisions relating
to the CDEP Scheme while Part 4 is made up of contingent amendments relating to
the end of the Scheme.
Background
The Community Development
Program (CDP)
The CDP provides employment services to those job seekers
who fall outside the employment regions covered by the jobactive
program—that is, in remote Australia.[1]
The program operates in over 1,000 communities and, as at
31 March 2020, there were 29,638 active CDP job seekers.[2]
All people who are in receipt of income support, have participation
requirements, and live in CDP regions are required to participate in the CDP as
a condition of receiving income support.[3]
While the program is not Indigenous-specific, a vast majority of participants
identify as Indigenous.[4]
The program has been designed around the unique social and
labour market conditions in remote Australia, where far fewer mainstream
employment options are typically available, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander peoples seek to retain elements of their traditional lifestyles
(preserving Indigenous languages, histories and traditions).[5]
The CDP is essentially made up of two main
elements—employment services and Work for the Dole participation. The
employment services furnished under the CDP consist of personalised assistance
from a service provider that are intended to help participants to build their
skills and gain employment. The assistance can include ‘formal training, with
the opportunity to gain qualifications, or foundational skills training,
including language, literacy and numeracy and driver’s training’.[6]
Until relatively recently participation in Work for the
Dole was a prerequisite for all CDP participants aged between 18 and 49 to meet
their mutual obligation requirements.[7]
Work for the Dole participation requirements were significantly higher for CDP
participants than for social security recipients in non-remote areas (see
discussion below). In light of the necessity to reduce COVID-19 viral
transmission opportunities and promote social distancing, the Government lifted
the requirement for Work for the Dole participation, along with other
face-to-face meeting requirements, last year. CDP participants also benefited
from the rise in social security payments during the first ‘wave’ of COVID-19.
These factors, along with an increase in the population of remote communities
as Aboriginal people returned to communities during enforced shutdowns, meant
that the number of participants in CDP is believed to have risen during 2020,
although data has not been released.[8]
From 12 May 2021 CDP participants have been able to
participate in Work for the Dole activities on a voluntary basis but have been
obliged to meet other mutual obligation requirements such as attending
appointments with service providers and meeting job search requirements.[9]
Mutual obligation requirements have been relaxed in the context of the
development of a new remote jobs program, to commence in 2023.[10]
Origins of the CDP
After gaining office in 2013, the Government announced its
intention to make major changes to the Remote Jobs and Communities Program (RJCP).[11]
The RJCP was a single assistance provider that combined Job Services Australia
(the national mainstream employment services program that was replaced by jobactive),
Disability Employment Services, and the Community Development Employment
Projects scheme (CDEP). The RJCP, which had been developed by the Rudd-Gillard
Government and which commenced operations on 1 July 2013, effectively continued
a general move towards the phasing out of CDEP arrangements and their
replacement with an emphasis on private sector employment and mainstream income
support and employment assistance services.
One of the main motivations behind the Government’s
changes to the RJCP—which came into effect on 1 July 2015, along with the
change of name to the CDP—was its judgment that the RJCP had involved a shift
away from CDEP and ‘workfare’. This, it was felt, could lead to an increase in
passivity, ‘sit-down money’, ‘welfare dependence’ and associated social ills,
as work requirements were no longer attached to payments.[12]
Then Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, who was previously part of the Howard
Government that commenced the process of shutting down CDEP, subsequently said
that ‘abolishing CDEP was a well-intentioned mistake and CDP is our attempt to
atone for it’.[13]
The problem, as some commentators see it, is that while
the CDP and CDEP may share similar titles there are key differences between the
two programs—differences that have contributed to harms being caused to CDP
participants, their families, kin, and communities.[14]
The CDEP and criticisms of the
CDP
Under CDEP, the unemployment benefit entitlements of individuals
were pooled and administered by a local Indigenous community or organisation,
which used the money to employ participants at or around minimum wage rates, doing
various forms of community work. As such, the scheme offered participants an
alternative to receiving income support payments while also contributing to
their communities. For most of its 40-year history CDEP operated on top of the
safety net, meaning that participants who needed to meet other important
obligations, or who were experiencing significant issues such as housing
instability or mental or physical illness, were able to fall back on income
support.
Because CDEP participants were paid at or around the
minimum award wage, they could earn the equivalent of the Newstart allowance by
working around 15 hours per week. Participants who wished to work more hours
were able to ‘top up’ their income through the redirection of unspent wages and
other sources of funds secured by the Indigenous organisations and communities
that managed the scheme.
For most of its lifespan, CDEP was managed by Indigenous
organisations and communities. These organisations and communities were given
considerable discretion in the rules that they applied and the arrangements
that they made, enabling them to be flexible with regards to things like
cultural leave and the payment of variable wage rates.[15]
Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research (CAEPR)
scholar, Lisa Fowkes has pointed out that, by contrast, under the CDP
participants are paid income support rather than a wage and are subject to
relatively inflexible income support and compliance system rules. These rules
are enforced by employment service providers under the CDP Funding Deed and
social security legislation, with decision making having been taken out of
Indigenous hands.[16]
One of the main criticisms levelled at the CDP was that
the mutual obligation requirements for program participants were more onerous
and inflexible than those for jobactive participants.
When the CDP was introduced all participants aged between
18 and 49 were required to participate in Work for the Dole activities for each
day of the working week for up to 25 hours a week throughout the year,
immediately upon qualification for payment.[17]
This participation continued indefinitely while participants were in receipt of
income support. Similarly, aged job seekers under jobactive are not
required to participate in an annual activity—which can include approved
activities other than Work for the Dole—until they have been on payment for 12 months.
This requirement is for six months of each year rather than the full year.
While the required hours of participation vary by age, they do not exceed 50 hours
per fortnight.[18]
Many commentators have argued that CDP arrangements were
both racially discriminatory and damaging, having resulted in a
disproportionate number of non-compliance penalties being imposed on CDP
participants.[19]
This led to a class-action lawsuit being brought in 2019 by some CDP
participants alleging that the CDP breached the Racial Discrimination Act
1975.[20]
On 1 October 2021, the NIAA announced that they had reached an
out-of-court settlement with the applicants.[21]
According to modelling undertaken by Fowkes, from the
introduction of the CDP in 2015 to 2018, participants in the program received
more than 50 per cent of all penalties applied to job seekers and over 80 per
cent of serious penalties for persistent non-compliance.[22]
This was despite the fact that CDP participants made up ‘at most, 5% of the
total job seeker population’.[23]
Fowkes attributed the increased penalties to both the more demanding
requirements imposed on CDP participants, which presented them with ‘more
opportunities to fail’, but also to their inflexible nature, with CDP
participants breaching their obligations due to ‘social, familial, cultural and
community obligations which take priority over work commitments’.[24]
In response to such criticisms the Government argued that
nearly all sanctions on CDP participants were overturned, and that participants
were back-paid when they reconnected with employment service providers.[25]
Controversy over the disproportionate number of sanctions imposed on CDP
participants led to a Senate Finance and Public Administration References
Committee inquiry into the program.[26]
Other commentators have argued, relatedly, that the CDP is
responsible for rising rates of poverty and financial stress in Indigenous
households in many remote areas.[27]
Changes made to the CDP and
attempts at reform
Over the life of the CDP the Government has made various
changes to the program, as well as a number of attempts at reforms.
At the end of 2015, the Government put forward legislation
to alter the CDP, namely, the Social
Security Legislation Amendment (Community Development Program) Bill 2015 (the
2015 Bill). Had it passed, the 2015 Bill would have raised the income threshold
at which income support payments began to taper for CDP participants; enabled
CDP service providers to become the managers of income support payments; and,
given the Minister the power to alter the operation of the Social Security
Act in declared CDP areas through legislative instruments.
A number of policies were advanced in the Explanatory
Memorandum for the 2015 Bill that might be enacted through those legislative
instruments, including: weekly payments; penalties levied in proportion to the
number of hours of CDP missed; increased provisions for cultural business and
illness; and a new community investment fund.[28]
Various aspects of the 2015 Bill were strongly criticised
by Indigenous stakeholders and service providers, in particular the lack of
consultation before the 2015 Bill was drafted and announced, and a lack of
clarity over whether community approval would be sought before the community
became a declared area.[29]
The 2015 Bill subsequently lapsed with the prorogation of Parliament in 2016
and was not reintroduced.
Following the negative response to the 2015 Bill, in
December 2017 the Government issued a discussion paper canvassing three options
for CDP reform: a new wage-based scheme, a slightly tweaked version of the 2015
Bill scheme, or continuing with the existing scheme with some adjustments.[30]
Responses to the paper generally favoured the concept of a wage-based scheme
(which would be similar to the former CDEP).
As a part of the 2018–19 Budget, the Government announced
a new policy to bring CDP participants under the mainstream demerit-point
Targeted Compliance Framework (TCF), and to create a subsidised employment
scheme with 6,000 participants.[31]
CDP participants had previously been explicitly excluded from the TCF.[32]
This proposal met with sharply negative reactions from stakeholders when it was
put forward as another
Bill in 2018. This Bill also lapsed at the prorogation of Parliament.[33]
However, a number of administrative changes were made to the CDP in 2019 which
subsidised 1,000 employment positions and which may have resulted in a
reduction in the number of penalties levied against CDP participants.[34]
Also at the 2018–19 Budget, the Government reduced the number of required Work
for the Dole hours from 25 hours per week to 20 hours per week.[35]
The Government regarded the CDP program as a success,
claiming that it had significantly higher rates of engagement in activities and
job placement than the RJCP program.[36]
However, as noted above, the program was also criticised for the extremely high
rates of sanctions and breaches issued against participants.
The Government funded an independent evaluation of the
CDP, the final report of which was released in February 2019. The evaluation
found that: the CDP was only delivering slightly higher 26 week employment
outcomes than the former RJCP (an improvement of one percentage point, from 5.7
per cent to 6.7 per cent of participants achieving a 26 week employment
outcome); more participants thought the program had been bad for their
communities than good for their communities; high penalty rates were
discouraging participation; and, despite very high levels of ill-health in
remote Indigenous communities, the percentage of participants receiving medical
exemptions from activity requirements was lower than that in the jobactive
program.[37]
Participants also complained about the lack of ‘top-up’ work, a reference to a
feature of the former CDEP, mentioned above.
In light of these findings, the Government announced a
number of administrative changes to the CDP to enable medical and other
barriers to participation to be more easily recognised and decrease penalties
levied on participants.[38]
These changes appear to have had some effect on penalty rates and the
recognition of CDP participants with vulnerabilities (see Table 1).
Table 1:
summary of CDP participation and penalties
CDP Quarter ending: |
September 2018 |
December 2018 |
March 2019 |
June 2019 |
September 2019 |
Active CDP job seekers |
23,929 |
26,058 |
24,542 |
25,251 |
25,431 |
CDP job seekers w
vulnerability |
1,411 (6%) |
1,691 (6%) |
1,852 (8%) |
2,270 (9%) |
2,539 (10%) |
Total Financial Penalties
(n) |
43,860 |
46,544 |
35,282 |
31,821 |
30,544 |
Source: Quarterly CDP Compliance reports
New remote jobs program
As a part of the 2021–22 Budget, the Government announced
its intention to replace the CDP with a new remote jobs program.[39]
The new program is to commence in 2023.[40]
The new program is to be ‘co-designed with Indigenous
Australians to support remote communities by targeting job creation and skills
development’.[41]
Pilot sites in which ‘new ways of engaging job seekers and building skills that
respond to the unique circumstances job seekers experience in remote Australia’
are to be trialled and will be announced ‘over the coming months’.[42]
The Government says it has ‘heard what communities and
stakeholders have said about the CDP, and calls from remote communities for
changes to the program’.[43]
It maintains that ‘the design of the new remote jobs program model will better
tailor the support job seekers need to find and secure work as the economy
recovers’.[44]
The Government has released a discussion paper ‘to support
the development of the new program’.[45]
The closing date for submissions is 30 November 2021. A second consultation
phase is to be run from late 2021 to April 2022, based on a discussion paper
that shares findings from the pilot projects. A third and final consultation
phase is to run from July 2022 to the commencement of the new remote jobs
program, focusing on communicating the details of program implementation.[46]
In the preface to the discussion paper, Minister for
Indigenous Australians, Ken Wyatt states:
We want to collaborate with stakeholders to develop a new
remote engagement program that will better enable participants to contribute to
goods and services that will strengthen the economic and social and cultural
life of communities; build in-demand skills; and prepare to compete effectively
for available jobs. But we also recognise that, in some of the most remote
parts of Australia, there are not enough jobs available for all the people who
want to work. Overall, there are fewer jobs available in remote areas, with
less than two per cent of actively trading businesses located there. Approaches
that focus only on participants moving into sustained employment in the open
market are unlikely to be sufficient to meet the needs of people without jobs
or job opportunities in these communities. We would like to identify and trial
new approaches to engage people in this situation.
We want to design a new program with enough flexibility for
employment services providers to tailor the supports they offer to meet
participants’ needs. The overall design and management of the new program will
continue to support progression into jobs where they are available, but will
include alternative pathways for those who are ready to work but cannot find a
job in their community, and for those facing ongoing participation barriers.[47]
Committee consideration
Finance and Public
Administration Legislation Committee
The Bill was referred to the Finance and Public
Administration Legislation Committee (the Committee) for inquiry. The Committee
reported on 14 October 2021, recommending that the Bill be passed.[48]
Labor made additional comments on the Bill and the Greens issued a dissenting
report, which are discussed below under ‘Policy position of non-government
parties’.[49]
Twelve organisations made submissions to the Committee.[50]
Several concerns were raised in relation to the Bill, in particular, a lack of
consultation on the Bill itself and the proposed remote engagement program, and
the fact that the program is welfare-based and does not provide for the payment
of award wages or legislated workplace protections.
In relation to the first of these concerns, the North
Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency and the Human Rights Law Centre have
stated:
The Bill dishonours the Federal Government’s commitment to
formal partnerships and shared decision-making in the National Agreement on
Closing the Gap. The introduction of the Bill itself demonstrates a concerning
lack of commitment to partnership—we understand that key organisations, such as
the Coalition of Peaks and APO NT, only learnt about the Bill when it was
tabled in Parliament. While co-design is referred to in the Explanatory
Memorandum, the Bill does not itself guarantee a codesign process for the pilot
programs or future national framework.[51]
With regards to the second main concern, the North
Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency and the Human Rights Law Centre maintain:
The Bill would pre-determine a welfare-based framework for
the pilot programs, with payment of a small supplement for at least 15 hours of
“work-like activities” per week. It is not a framework for proper jobs and
wages, as proposed by the Fair Work Strong Communities model. If people are
working, they should be employed and receive all the normal protections and
benefits of employment. Anything less risks undervaluing the labour of First
Nations peoples in remote communities and repeating wage injustices of the
past.[52]
Further comments of stakeholders are canvassed under the
heading ‘Key issues and provisions’ below.
Senate Standing Committee for
the Scrutiny of Bills
In its Scrutiny Digest 15 of 16 September 2021, the
Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills raised concerns over the
Bill’s leaving significant matters for delegated legislation—namely, the
qualification requirements for a remote engagement program payment (under proposed
new subsection 661A(2)(c) and the circumstances in which a remote
engagement program payment is not payable (under proposed new section 661C).
While noting the Explanatory Memorandum’s justification
for the proposed use of delegated legislation—namely, that this would allow for
flexibility in the context of a pilot program that is under development—the
Committee nevertheless argues that it:
… has generally not accepted a desire for administrative
flexibility to be a sufficient justification, of itself, for leaving
significant matters to delegated legislation. It is unclear to the committee
why at least high-level guidance in relation to additional qualification
requirements and the circumstances in which a remote engagement program payment
will not be payable to a person cannot be provided on the face of the bill.
Additionally, the committee considers that providing the minister with the
ability to determine that a remote engagement program payment is not payable in
circumstances where there is no guidance on the face of the primary legislation
provides the minister with a broad discretionary power. The committee notes
that a legislative instrument, made by the executive, is not subject to the
full range of parliamentary scrutiny inherent in bringing proposed changes in
the form of an amending bill.[53]
The last sentence of this quote recognises that a
legislative instrument can only be allowed
or disallowed (in whole or in part). Parliament does not have the capacity
to amend a legislative instrument, and a legislative instrument is only subject
to parliamentary debate where there is a motion for disallowance.
The Committee sought advice as to ‘why it is considered
necessary and appropriate to leave matters relating to when a person will be
eligible or ineligible for the remote engagement program payment to delegated
legislation’, and, whether the Bill can be amended to include ‘at least
high-level guidance’ on qualification requirements for the payment and the
circumstances under which a payment will not be payable that may be specified
in a legislative instrument.[54]
Position of major interest
groups
As noted above, a dozen submissions have been made to the
Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee inquiry into the Bill,
most of them by Aboriginal organisations.
The main concerns raised in relation to the Bill are:
- neither
the Bill nor the remote engagement program it seeks to enable have been
designed in collaboration or consultation with Aboriginal people, communities,
and representative bodies and
- participants
in the remote engagement program will not be paid at the rate of the national
minimum wage or receive other employee entitlements.
Some submitters have also criticised the Bill on the
grounds that it contains no commitment to reforms that would help to create
employment opportunities in remote areas.
Policy
position of non-government parties
While Labor Senators did not explicitly oppose the Bill,
they flagged various concerns and argued that:
… the trial provided for in this legislation will not support
nor create quality, long-lasting jobs in remote Australia. Neither does it
transform the way Governments work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
people, as laid out in the National Partnership Agreement on Closing the Gap.
It is a missed opportunity to fundamentally reform CDP, or trial models that
will genuinely contribute to job creation.[55]
Australian Greens Senators opposed the Bill in its current
form and recommended that, among other things:
- the
Government engage in a co-design process for the CDP replacement program in its
entirety
- significant
matters be included in the primary legislation rather than delegated
legislation and
- remote
engagement program participants be treated as employees, being paid at least
the minimum wage, receive superannuation and leave entitlements, and enjoy
workplace protections.[56]
Financial implications
The Explanatory Memorandum states that the costs of the
measure will be absorbed within the Indigenous Advancement Strategy.[57]
If the measures result in higher participation levels, and
lower levels of penalties being levied, than the current CDP, it could be
expected to increase the total amount of social security payments made to
participants.
Statement
of Compatibility with Human Rights
As required under Part 3 of the Human Rights
(Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth), the Government has assessed the
Bill’s compatibility with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared
in the international instruments listed in section 3 of that Act. The
Government considers that the Bill is compatible.[58]
Parliamentary Joint Committee on
Human Rights
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights reported
on the Bill on 16 September 2021.[59]
The Committee has observed that the new remote engagement
program payment may help to promote the right to work and the rights to
social security and an adequate standard of living. It has argued that in the
absence of further detail regarding the specifics of the program—including who
may qualify for the program, the qualifying conditions for the payment, the
rate of pay, and the circumstances in which the payment will not be payable,
all of which are to be set out in legislative instruments—it is difficult to
determine whether this will be the case.
Key issues and provisions
Subsections 94(1), 500(1), and 593(1) and section 540 of
the Social Security Act set out the criteria for qualification for the
Disability Support Payment (DSP), Parenting Payment, Jobseeker Payment and
Youth Allowance, respectively. Items 3, 4, 5 and 6 insert notes at these
sections and subsection to specify that participants in a remote engagement
placement may qualify for a remote engagement program payment whilst also
qualifying for the receipt of the abovementioned income support payments.
Item 7 inserts new Part 2.13 – Remote engagement
program payment into the Social Security Act. This proposed part
specifies the general qualification criteria for remote engagement program
payment at section 661A. More specific criteria in relation to
qualifying remote income support payments—namely, DSP, Parenting Payment, Youth
Allowance and Jobseeker Payment—are set out at proposed new section 661B.
Essentially, these criteria are that the job seeker must
qualify for the relevant payment and be required to meet participation
requirements in the case of DSP and Parenting Payment recipients, or to satisfy
the activity test in the case of Youth Allowance and Jobseeker Payment
recipients. Job seekers may still qualify for the remote engagement program
payment if they are covered by a participation exemption for things like illness
or accidents, as set out in the Social Security Act. In the case of
Youth Allowance recipients, they do not qualify for a remote engagement program
payment if they are satisfying activity test requirements through full-time
study.
While item 7 of the Bill inserts into the Social
Security Act references to the activity test, Schedule 1 of the Social
Security Legislation Amendment (Streamlined Participation Requirements and
Other Measures) Bill 2021, which is currently before the House of Representatives,
proposes to remove from the Social Security Act all references to the
activity test.[60]
The Explanatory Memorandum of the latter Bill explains that the Bill seeks to
discard ‘the unnecessary phrase “activity test”, which causes excessive
complication in current provisions, and combining the requirement to seek and
accept suitable paid work with the provisions dealing with employment pathway
plan requirements. This is consistent with the longstanding practice that the
requirement to seek and accept paid work is included in employment pathway
plans’.[61]
Should Schedule 1 of the Social Security Legislation
Amendment (Streamlined Participation Requirements and Other Measures) Bill 2021
commence before the Bill, then item 9 will repeal and substitute the
table at proposed new subsection 661B(1) under item 7. The effect
of this would be to ensure that references to the activity test and other
changed participation requirements are not inserted into the Social Security
Act by the Bill.
Proposed new subsection 661B(2) provides for the
Minister to determine by legislative instrument a class of persons in receipt
of another income support payment that may also qualify for a remote engagement
program payment.
Proposed new subdivision B—Payability
specifies conditions under which the remote engagement payment may be paid. It
allows for the Minister to specify by legislative instrument circumstances
under which a payment is not payable (proposed new subsections 661C(1) and
(2)) and specifies that a payment may not be payable for a period over 104
weeks (proposed new subsection 661D(1)) or on or after 1 July 2024 (proposed
new subsection 661D(2)).
Lack of protections and the promotion
of insecure work
Proposed new section 661E provides for the rate of
the remote engagement program payment to be that specified by the Minister by
legislative instrument, so long as this is not less than $100 or more than $190
per fortnight. The Explanatory Memorandum points out that the aim of setting
the payment at this level is to approximate the minimum wage when combined with
the job seeker’s income support, assuming that the job seeker participates in a
placement for between 15 and 18 hours per week.[62]
The Explanatory Memorandum stresses that the payment ‘will
not be at a level high enough that people avoid taking up paid employment
opportunities’.[63]
This was an ongoing concern for some critics of the CDEP; namely that the
relatively high incomes that could be secured through a combination of CDEP and
welfare payments acted as a disincentive for participants to consider study,
training or mainstream employment opportunities.[64]
In its report on the Bill the Parliamentary Joint
Committee on Human Rights has argued, after the UN Committee on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights, that the right to just and favourable conditions of
work is a right of everyone, including unpaid workers. As such, it maintains
that:
… depending on the nature and hours of work performed in
accordance with the placement, if such work were to constitute a form of
employment for the purposes of international human rights law, there could be a
risk that the amount of social security payable to the individual (of $100–$190
per fortnight for 15–18 hours work) may not amount to fair renumeration,
particularly where participants perform work of equal value to work performed
by actual employees of the remote engagement program provider.[65]
As the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency and
Human Rights Law Centre see it:
… even if the supplement does equate to the basic minimum
wage, people will still be worse off on the supplement than if they were
employed to work 15–18 hours because if they were part-time employees, they
would be able to claim partial payment of unemployment benefits, as well as
being entitled to superannuation and other employee benefits.[66]
While the Bill specifies a minimum amount of hours per
week that must be worked under the program, it does not stipulate a maximum number
of hours (proposed subsection 661A(1)(c)). This raises the potential for
the exploitation of participants, whether this be deliberate or inadvertent.
Neither the Bill nor the Explanatory Memorandum provide
any indication as to what will happen to a participant’s supplement if they do
not work the requisite 15 hours per week. (It is to be assumed that these
arrangements are to be specified by legislative instrument made under proposed
new subsection 661C(2)).[67]
The Australian Human Rights Commission has expressed the concern that
participants may not receive any supplementary payment if they fail to meet the
minimum work hours requirement, ‘even if they have valid reasons for not doing
so’.[68]
Both the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills and the
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights noted concerns regarding the
absence of detail in the Bill and Explanatory Memorandum regarding
qualification requirements for the payment and the circumstances under which a
payment will not be payable.[69]
Relatedly, the Australian Council of Social Service
(ACOSS) has argued that it is not clear from the Bill whether volunteers who
receive the supplement will be subject to Targeted Compliance Framework
requirements in relation to their participation. If this were the case, then
‘the base part of the allowance—if it is activity-tested as are the Jobseeker
and Youth Allowance payments—could be reduced when, for example, someone does
not attend without what is accepted as a ‘reasonable excuse’’.[70]
As ACOSS sees it, ‘just as people undertaking work should be paid proper wages,
any issues of non-attendance should be dealt with using workplace relations
disciplinary procedures, not income support penalties’.[71]
In public hearings on the Bill, ACOSS senior policy advisor Simone Casey
reiterated this position, stating ‘we [ACOSS] certainly don’t think that the
current measure to introduce an income support supplement should be linked to
any kind of income support compliance program at all’.[72]
Proposed new section 661F provides that remote
employment program participants are not to be treated as though they were
workers for the purposes of relevant Commonwealth legislation. As noted above,
this is a highly contentious aspect of the Bill.
As part of a job seeker’s mutual obligation requirements
they may be compelled to participate in a work-focused program delivered by a
community or private enterprise organisation. Job seekers who participate in
approved programs of work are not taken to be employees for the purposes of the
Work Health and Safety Act 2011, the Rehabilitation and Compensation
Act 1988, the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 or
the Fair Work Act 2009.[73]
The Department of Education, Skills and Employment purchases personal accident
insurance and/or product liability insurance to cover job seekers in currently
approved programs of work and Work for the Dole host organisations are required
to ensure that ‘the workplace and activity meet all work and safety obligations
under relevant legislation and program requirements, and must maintain
insurances as outlined in their relevant Deed and understand the coverage
available to them under their own insurance policies’.[74]
Presumably, similar insurances will be taken out and required in relation to
the remote engagement program. In the course of public hearings on the Bill a
representative from the Department of Social Services indicated that ensuring
such protections would be a matter for the National Indigenous Australians
Agency, which is responsible for managing the policy and the remote engagement
program.[75]
Unions have consistently argued that it is unacceptable
for job seekers who are engaged in work or work-like activities as a part of
their mutual obligations to be denied access to basic workplace rights, minimum
wages and the protection of occupational health and workplace legislation. As
they see it, participation in such programs can pose risks to participants as
well as helping to undermine Australia’s wage system—potentially dragging down
pay and conditions for all workers.[76]
Participation in remote engagement program placements is
to be voluntary for eligible job seekers in pilot sites.[77]
However, the Explanatory Memorandum points out that any participant in work‑like
activities in a remote engagement placement ‘regardless of whether or not the
participation is required in accordance with a term of an employment pathway
plan’ will not be taken to be an employee or worker for the purposes of Commonwealth
industrial legislation.[78]
Submissions to the Finance and Public Administration
Legislation Committee inquiry into the Bill have echoed the concerns of unions
expressed in relation to approved programs of work. For example, Aboriginal
Peak Organisations Northern Territory has argued:
In effect the Bill would enable the Government to create
another class of worker whose income support is benchmarked against the minimum
wage, but who would not have access to the normal entitlements of minimum wage
employees. It may be argued that the scheme is voluntary. But it would be
operating in an environment where there are very few job options and many live
in poverty. In any event exploitation of workers cannot normally be justified
on the basis that these workers agreed.[79]
Similarly, the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency
and the Human Rights Law Centre maintain:
While the intent behind the Bill appears genuine, it risks
creating a model of disempowerment and difference. Ultimately, two classes of
‘worker’ will be created and may work alongside each other in a government or
community organisation—one will receive a decent wage, superannuation,
protections from workplace injury and have the freedom to spend their wage as
they see fit and to potentially claim part payment of social security benefits.
The other will be working for a social security supplement and have none of
those rights and protections.[80]
Need to create increased
employment opportunities
Another related concern is that there is no clear pathway
from remote employment program participation into paid employment. Jon Altman,
Elise Klein, Francis Markham and Zoe Staines have argued that ‘even if
volunteers participate in the trials for two years and can build important
skills and experience, there is no guarantee provided by the REP Bill that they
will have a paid job at the trial’s completion’.[81]
As Altman, Klein, Markham and Staines—along with a number of other submitters to
the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee inquiry into the
Bill—see it, a greater emphasis needs to be placed on demand-side interventions
and the creation of employment opportunities in remote communities. ACOSS
argued:
Neither shortages of jobs nor the mismatch between people’s
skills and qualifications will be addressed unless there is direct investment
in job creation and workforce development strategies. These require a long-term
commitment to, and investment in, remote communities, that must be determined
and governed by the communities themselves.[82]
The Explanatory Memorandum indicates that remote
engagement program placements ‘will not be a job, but will aim to give
jobseekers experience that will enable transition to paid employment’.[83]
It also points out that the time limits placed on the payability of the remote
engagement program payment are being imposed because ‘the remote engagement
placement is not intended to be a long-term arrangement, but has been developed
to improve jobseeker skills and job readiness as well as to assist the transition
to paid work’.[84]
As such, the placements may largely constitute what Minister Wyatt has referred
to as a ‘new approach’ or ‘alternative pathway’ to engaging people in contexts
where there are insufficient employment opportunities in the open market.[85]
Lack of consultation and
collaboration
In the introduction to the discussion paper on the new
remote engagement program, Minister Wyatt indicated that the Government wishes
to ‘collaborate with stakeholders to develop a new remote engagement program’.[86]
Similarly, the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill suggests that the Government
is committed to co-designing the remote engagement program pilots with remote
communities, and that it views this cooperation as being critical to the
pilots’ success.[87]
The Bill is presented as a means to ‘give effect to the
Government’s commitment to work in partnership with Indigenous communities’.[88]
However, many Aboriginal and welfare organisations think the Government got off
to a bad start in this process through its failure to consult and collaborate
on the Bill and the remote engagement program payment that it seeks to enable.
For example, while the Northern Territory Council of
Social Service has welcomed the Government’s decision to abolish the CDP and
develop a replacement scheme in cooperation with Aboriginal people and
communities, it argues:
… despite this commitment, the proposed Bill has not been
designed in collaboration or consultation with Aboriginal people, communities,
and representative bodies, and it falls short of addressing the lack of access
to paid employment in remote communities. Under the National Agreement on
Closing the Gap, the Australian Government committed to partnership and shared
decision making with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The Bill
falls short of this commitment. In order to meet Closing the Gap targets, it is
essential that genuine engagement and shared decision-making processes and
principles are adhered to.[89]
The North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency and the
Human Rights Law Centre are particularly concerned about the lack of
consultation on the Bill because, as they see it, the Bill establishes a
welfare-based approach to the development of the new remote engagement program:
While the Government states that it will engage in co-design
at a local level in relation to the pilot sites, this Bill sets the scene for
welfare-based pilots only. At the very least, it does not create a legislative
basis for an alternative approach. Whether people are employed or kept on
social security is a crucial question, with significant implications for the
rights of people in remote communities to fair and just conditions of work, to
social security and to non-discrimination and equality. It is a question that
should be approached through shared decision-making between the Federal
Government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, as required by
the Closing the Gap Agreement. Given that this Bill will set the scene for the
future national framework, the Government should have engaged broadly with
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and representative organisations.
The Government’s stated commitment to engage in co-design in
relation to the pilot sites and a future national framework is not reassuring
in light of the breach of trust that the abrupt introduction of this Bill
represents. Significantly, co-design, partnership and shared decision-making in
the development, implementation and evaluation of the pilot sites and the
future national framework are not enshrined in the Bill at all.[90]
In its report on the Bill the Parliamentary Joint
Committee on Human Rights acknowledged the importance of the Government’s aim
to co-design the remote jobs program with Aboriginal communities. It also
pointed out that Australia has an obligation under international law to consult
with Indigenous peoples in relation to actions that may affect them. It then
goes on to note:
… it is unclear whether communities have been genuinely
consulted about the proposed measure prior to the introduction of this bill, noting
that the obligation to consult under international human rights law includes
the right of indigenous peoples to ‘influence the outcome of decision-making
processes affecting them, not a mere right to be involved in such processes or
merely to have their views heard’.[91]
Evidence from the National Indigenous Australians Agency
suggests the Government sees the proposed use of delegated legislation and the
flexibility this enables as allowing for co-design of the program.[92]
On this view, the potential to negotiate matters such as the precise amount of
the supplementary payment and requirements associated with participation in
different sites, to be presented to the Parliament in legislative instruments,
constitutes co-design.
The amendments at Part 1 are to commence on a day
to be fixed by Proclamation. However, if the provisions do not commence within
six months of the Act’s receiving Royal Assent, they will commence on the day
following the end of that period.
End of the CDEP Scheme
As noted above, the CDEP scheme was shut down some years
ago. In order to help Northern Territory CDEP participants to manage any
changes in income involved in the transition to income support, the
Rudd-Gillard Government introduced the Northern Territory CDEP Transition Payment.[93]
The provisions in this fund have been expended.[94]
In the interests of ‘modernising and streamlining the
social security legislation’[95]
Parts 3 and 4 of the Bill repeal from the Age Discrimination Act 2004,
the Social Security Act 1991 and the Social Security (Administration)
Act 1999 provisions that establish or refer to the CDEP scheme and the CDEP
Scheme Participation Supplement Transition Payment.
The provisions at Part 4 will commence only if the
provisions at Part 3 are enacted and commence before Schedule 1 of the
Social Security Legislation Amendment (Streamlined Participation Requirements
and Other Measures) Bill 2021 commences. The provisions at Part 3
commence the day after Royal Assent.
[1]. For
a brief background on the CDP, see J Haughton, Social
Security Legislation Amendment (Community Development Program) Bill 2015,
Bills digest, 93, 2015–16, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2016.
[2]. National
Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA), Community
Development Program (CDP) March 2020 Quarterly Compliance Data, p. 2.;
National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA), ‘The Community
Development Program (CDP)’, NIAA website.
[3]. Participation
payments are Jobseeker Payment, Youth Allowance for persons who are not apprentices
or full-time students, Parenting Payment for persons who have participation
requirements and special benefit for certain visa holders.
[4]. Lisa
Fowkes has estimated that around 84 per cent of participants identify as
Indigenous Australians: L Fowkes, Community
Development Program: background briefing, prepared for Jobs Australia,
n.p., n.d., p. 2.
[5]. National
Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA), ‘The Community
Development Program (CDP)’, NIAA website, n.d.
[6]. Ibid.
[7]. ‘Mutual
obligations’ refer to the expectation that income support recipients will
participate in approved activities to improve their prospects of gaining paid
employment and give something back to the community that supports them.
[8]. M
Keene, COVID-19
and Indigenous Australians: a chronology, Research paper, Parliamentary
Library, Canberra, 30 July 2020.
[9]. NIAA,
‘The
Community Development Program (CDP)’, op. cit. Remaining compulsory
requirements include agreeing to a job plan; attending regular appointments and
job interviews; meeting job search requirements (dependent on the strength of
the labour market); accepting suitable paid work when it is offered; and not
voluntarily leaving.
[10]. NIAA,
‘Changes
to mutual obligations requirements for Community Development Program (CDP)’,
NIAA website, 11 May 2021.
[11]. N
Scullion (Minister for Indigenous Affairs), Immediate
changes to the Remote Jobs and Communities Programme, media release, 29
November 2013.
[12]. K
Jordan, ‘Closing
the employment gap through Work for the Dole? Indigenous employment and the
CDEP scheme’, Journal of Australian Political Economy, 69, 2012, pp.
30–58; S Martin, ‘Communities
told to get to work’, The Australian, 2 July 2015, p. 6; C
Graham, ‘Why
Toomelah Collapsed’, New Matilda, 6 July 2012; S Martin, ‘30
years working for dole a reality’, The Australian, 2 March 2015, p.
1.
[13]. A
Aikman, ‘Widen
welfare rules to all jobless, says Tony Abbott’, The Australian, 5
October 2016.
[14]. Fowkes,
Community
Development Program, op. cit., pp. 5–7.
[15]. The
CDEP was not without problems.
While evaluations of the program over the
last 20 years of its operation consistently found that CDEP participants had
better social, health and economic outcomes than unemployed and not in the
labour force Indigenous people, they also found that participants had worse
outcomes than Indigenous people in non-CDEP employment. B Hunter and M Gray, Continuity and
change in the CDEP scheme, Working paper, 84, 2012, Centre for Aboriginal
Economic Policy Research (CAEPR), Canberra, 2012.
It
is also the case that high levels of local control under the CDEP created the
potential for work requirements to be influenced by personal relationships.
Further, the scheme’s orientation to local community needs created the
potential for ‘internal economies’ to form which were not oriented towards
making participants employable in wider labour markets. This latter feature
need not necessarily have been seen as a negative by Indigenous communities
whose needs were being met. E Masters, ‘Federal
Govt rules out extra CDEP funding’, ABC News, 8 June 2010. It is
also generally accepted that CDEP workers were often doing jobs that would, in
other places, have been done by employees of state/territory or local
governments. Jordan, ‘Closing
the employment gap through Work for the Dole?, op. cit., pp. 30–58; S
Martin, ‘Communities
told to get to work’, The Australian, 2 July 2015, p. 6; Graham, ‘Why Toomelah
Collapsed’, op. cit.; Martin, ‘30
years working for dole a reality’, op. cit.
[16]. Fowkes,
Community
Development Program, op. cit.
[17]. J
Hockey (Treasurer) and M Cormann (Minister for Finance), Mid-year
economic and fiscal outlook 2014–15, p. 191. The rationale for the
increased demands of the CDP program was: ‘This model responds to the unique
challenges of remote Australia, which is characterised by weak labour markets
and reduced opportunities to gain work experience and skills. The lack of
available work also requires a program that allows people to meaningfully
contribute to broader community goals’. Finance and Public Administration
Committee, Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio, Additional Estimates 2017–18,
Question no. 165.
[18]. Department
of Social Services (DSS), ‘3.11.4 Annual
Activity Requirement’, Guide to social security law, version 1.286,
DSS website, 27 September 2021.
[19]. See,
for example, National Social Security Rights Network, Submission
to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the Social
Security Legislation Amendment (Community Development Program) Bill 2018,
20 September 2018, p. 1 and Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS), Submission
to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the Social
Security Legislation Amendment (Community Development Program) Bill 2018,
September 2018, p. 3.
[20]. T
Joyner, ‘Aboriginal
communities sue Federal Government over “racially discriminatory”
work-for-the-dole scheme’, ABC News (website), 9 August 2019.
[21]. NIAA,
‘Basil
Joshua Dawson & Ors v Commonwealth of Australia’, NIAA website, 1
October 2021.
[22]. L
Fowkes, Submission
to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the Social
Security Legislation Amendment (Community Development Program) Bill 2018,
20 September 2018, p. 1.
[23]. Ibid.
[24]. National
Congress on Australia’s First Peoples, Submission
to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the Social
Security Legislation Amendment (Community Development Program) Bill 2018,
September 2018, p. 4.
[25]. Senate
Finance and Public Administration References Committee, Appropriateness
and effectiveness of the objectives, design, implementation and evaluation of
the Community Development Program (CDP), 14 December 2017, p. 125.
[26]. Senate
Finance and Public Administration References Committee, Report
on Appropriateness and effectiveness of the objectives, design, implementation
and evaluation of the Community Development Program (CDP),
Senate, Canberra, December 2017.
[27]. F
Markham and N Biddle, Income,
poverty and inequality, CAEPR, Canberra, 2018.
[28]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Social Security Legislation Amendment (Community Development
Program) Bill, 2015.
[29]. See
J Haughton, op. cit.
[30]. Department
of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C), Remote
employment and participation, Discussion paper, PM&C, Canberra,
December 2017.
[31]. Australian
Government, Budget
measures: budget paper no. 2: 2018–19, p. 165.
[32]. See
Explanatory
Memorandum, Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform)
Bill 2017, pp. 57, 62, 81, 88, 92, 144, 158 for statements of exclusion.
[33]. National
Congress of Australia’s First Peoples, First
peoples sacrificed in the name of budget surplus, media release, 9 May 2018;
H Davidson and C Knaus, ‘"Blatantly
discriminatory": changes to remote work-for-dole scheme criticised’, The
Guardian, 11 May 2018; Aboriginal Peak Organisations Northern
Territory and Human Rights Law Centre, Discriminatory
remote work scheme improved but onerous work hours and harsh penalties will
drive poverty, media release, 10 May 2018.
[34]. K
Wyatt, Community
Development Program reforms delivering for Indigenous Australians,
media release, 2 October 2019.
[35]. PM&C,
2018–19
Budget: Community Development Programme reforms, p. 1.
[36]. In
its response to the Senate Finance and Public Administration References
Committee report on the CDP the Government claimed that engagement had been
increased from around seven per cent at the end of the RJCP to 70.4 per cent at
31 August 2018. Australian
Government response to the Senate Finance and Public Administration References
Committee report: The appropriateness and effectiveness of the objectives,
design, implementation and evaluation of the Community Development Program
(CDP), November 2018, p. 4. It is, however, debatable whether this is a
fair comparison given that the RJCP was introduced as a major change from the
CDEP system (hence transitional and ‘teething’ problems could be expected) and
was only in existence for a short time before being modified and then replaced
by the Government.
[37]. PM&C,
An
evaluation of the first two years of the Community Development Programme,
summary, PM&C, 5 February 2019.
[38]. Wyatt,
Community
Development Program reforms, op. cit.
[39]. Australian
Government, Budget
measures: budget paper no. 2: 2021–22, p. 176.
[40]. NIAA,
‘Changes
to the Community Development Program (CDP)’, NIAA website, 11 May 2021.
[41]. Ibid.
[42]. Ibid.
[43]. NIAA,
‘Changes
to mutual obligations requirements for Community Development Program (CDP)’,
NIAA website, 11 May 2021.
[44]. NIAA,
‘Changes
to the Community Development Program’, op. cit.
[45]. NIAA,
New
Remote Engagement Program, Discussion paper, NIAA, Canberra, August
2021, p. 3.
[46]. Ibid.,
p. 5.
[47]. Ibid.,
pp. 3–4.
[48]. Senate
Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, Social
Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement Program) Bill 2021
[Provisions], Senate, Canberra, 14 October 2021, p. vii.
[49]. Ibid.,
pp. 31–40.
[50]. Senate
Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, Submissions
to the Inquiry into the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote
Engagement Program) Bill 2021 [Provisions].
[51]. North
Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency and Human Rights Law Centre, Submission
to Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, Inquiry
into the Provisions of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote
Engagement Program) Bill 2021 [Provisions], [Submission no. 7], 20
September 2021, p. 4.
[52]. Ibid.
The Fair Work and Strong Communities: Proposal for a Remote Development and
Employment Scheme was developed in 2017 by Aboriginal Peak Organisations
Northern Territory (APO NT) as an alternative to the CDP. The proposal is
informed by consultations with and input from many Aboriginal organisations and
is supported by many such organisations. Central to the proposal is the
establishment of a fund to directly create around 10,500 jobs within Indigenous
community-based organisations working on identified services and projects. The
jobs would have normal employment conditions, including superannuation and
leave entitlements. Aboriginal Peak Organisations Northern Territory, Fair Work and
Strong Communities: Proposal for a Remote Development and Employment Scheme,
2nd edn, 2018.
[53]. Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny
digest, 15, 2021, 16 September 2021, p. 25.
[54]. Ibid.,
pp. 25–6.
[55]. Senate
Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, Social
Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement Program) Bill 2021
[Provisions], Senate, Canberra, 14 October 2021, p. 31.
[56]. Ibid.,
pp. 39–40.
[57]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Social Security Legislation Amendment (Streamlined
Participation Requirements and Other Measures) Bill 2021, p. 5.
[58]. The
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights can be found at pages 17 to 20 of
the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill.
[59]. Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights, Human
rights scrutiny report, 11, 2021, 16 September 2021, pp. 42–53.
[60]. Parliament
of Australia, ‘Social
Security Legislation Amendment (Streamlined Participation Requirements and
Other Measures) Bill 2021 homepage’, Australian Parliament website.
Schedule 1 of the Bill also seeks to remove from the Social Security Act references
to payment-specific Employment Pathway Plans (EPPs) and requirements associated
with them, replacing them with references to a single consolidated EPP being
inserted into the Administration Act by the Bill.
[61]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Social Security Legislation Amendment (Streamlined
Participation Requirements and Other Measures) Bill 2021, p. 7.
[62]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement
Program) Bill 2021, p. 4.
[63]. Ibid.
[64]. See,
for example, S Hudson, CDEP:
Help or hindrance? The Community Development Employment Program and its impact
on Indigenous Australians, The Centre for Independent Studies (CIS), St
Leonards NSW, 2008, pp. 8–9.
[65]. Human
rights scrutiny report, 11, 2021, op. cit., p. 46.
[66]. North
Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency and Human Rights Law Centre, Submission
to Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, Inquiry
into the Provisions of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote
Engagement Program) Bill 2021 [Provisions], [Submission no. 7], 20
September 2021, p. 7.
[67]. Some
submissions have questioned whether or not the payment will be subject to
income management arrangements. J Altman, E Klein, F Markham and Z
Staines, Submission
to Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, Inquiry
into the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement Program) Bill
2021 [Provisions], [Submission no. 10], 20 September 2021, p. 4; Aboriginal
Peak Organisations Northern Territory, Submission
to Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, Inquiry
into the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement Program) Bill
2021 [Provisions], [Submission no. 3], 20 September 2021, p. 3.
[68]. Australian
Human Rights Commission, Submission
to Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, Inquiry
into the Provisions of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote
Engagement Program) Bill 2021 [Provisions], [Submission no. 6], 20
September 2021, p. 4.
[69]. Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, op. cit.; Human rights
scrutiny report, op. cit.
[70]. Australian
Council of Social Service (ACOSS), Submission
to Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, Inquiry
into the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement Program) Bill
2021 [Provisions], [Submission no. 5], 20 September 2021, p. 4.
[71]. Ibid.,
p. 5.
[72]. S
Casey, Evidence
to Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, Inquiry
into the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement Program) Bill
2021, 23 September 2021, p. 3.
[73]. Social
Security Act, section 120. At present, the National Work Experience Program
and Work for the Dole are the only approved programs of work. Currently, under
the Social Security Act, the Secretary may declare in writing that a
particular program of work is an approved program of work for income support
payment. The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Streamlined Participation
Requirements and Other Measures) Bill 2021, which is currently before the House
of Representatives, seeks to amend the Social Security Act so that any
declaration by the Secretary will be a legislative instrument. For further
details see D Arthur and M Thomas, Social
Security Legislation Amendment (Streamlined Participation Requirements and
Other Measures) Bill 2021, Bills digest, 77, 2020–21, Parliamentary
Library, Canberra, 24 June 2021, p. 18.
[74]. Department
of Education, Skills and Employment, ‘Answer to Question on Notice: Lack of
protections for workers undertaking employment programs’, [Questioner: R
Siewert], Question
IQ21-000057, Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment, 11 June
2021.
[75]. M
Flavel, Evidence
to Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, Inquiry into
the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement Program) Bill
2021, 23 September 2021, p. 29.
[76]. See,
for example, comments made by the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) in
relation to the Youth Jobs PaTH program. M Thomas, Social
Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Jobs Path: Prepare, Trial, Hire) Bill
2016, Bills digest, 37, 2016–17, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 10
November 2016, p. 4.
[77]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement
Program) Bill 2021, p. 3.
[78]. Ibid.,
p. 12.
[79]. Aboriginal
Peak Organisations Northern Territory, op. cit., p. 4.
[80]. North
Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency and the Human Rights Law Centre, op. cit.,
p. 7.
[81]. Altman,
et al, op. cit., p. 5.
[82]. ACOSS,
op. cit., p. 5.
[83]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement
Program) Bill 2021, p. 4.
[84]. Ibid.,
p. 11.
[85]. NIAA,
New
Remote Engagement Program, op. cit., pp. 3–4.
[86]. Ibid.,
p. 2.
[87]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement Program)
Bill 2021, p. 3.
[88]. Ibid.
[89]. Northern
Territory Council of Social Service, Submission
to Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, Inquiry
into the Provisions of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote
Engagement Program) Bill 2021 [Provisions], [Submission no. 11], 9
September 2021, p. 2.
[90]. North
Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency and the Human Rights Law Centre, op. cit.,
p. 6.
[91]. Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights, op. cit., p. 51.
[92]. R
Bulman, Evidence
to Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, Inquiry
into the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement Program) Bill
2021, 23 September 2021, p. 22.
[93]. See
CDEP
in the Northern Territory Emergency Response Questions and Answers
[94]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement
Program) Bill 2021, p. 13.
[95]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement
Program) Bill 2021, p. 4.
For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament.
© Commonwealth of Australia
Creative Commons
With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and to the extent that copyright subsists in a third party, this publication, its logo and front page design are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.
In essence, you are free to copy and communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.
To the extent that copyright subsists in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.
Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.
Disclaimer: Bills Digests are prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament. They are produced under time and resource constraints and aim to be available in time for debate in the Chambers. The views expressed in Bills Digests do not reflect an official position of the Australian Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal opinion. Bills Digests reflect the relevant legislation as introduced and do not canvass subsequent amendments or developments. Other sources should be consulted to determine the official status of the Bill.
Any concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or the Library‘s Central Enquiry Point for referral.