Conclusions and recommendations
7.1
This inquiry into the Community Development Program (CDP) has been a
valuable process for individual participants, communities and providers to
raise the significant concerns they have with the CDP. The committee thanks
those who have assisted the committee by generously sharing their experiences
during this inquiry. At the heart of this inquiry are the people and
communities participating in CDP. Councillor Alf Lacey, Mayor of Palm Island
posed a potent question to the committee about a future without change for
these people and communities:
Seriously, have a thought for those participants. Do they do
CDP for the rest of their lives? Do their children do the next cycle coming
through and do CDP for the rest of their lives?[1]
7.2
The committee is of the view that CDP cannot and should not continue in
its current form. A new program needs to be developed which moves away from a
centralised, top-down administration in which communities are told what to do
and move towards a model where the local communities are empowered to make
decisions that are best for them. The program also needs to move from a
punitive, attendance-focused approach towards one which rewards participation
in activities that are selected and valued by the community and, in turn,
provide skills and experiences which improve the job-readiness and quality of
life of all participants.
7.3
This inquiry has been timely, taking place as the government indicates
it too is considering the future of the program. This juncture presents an
opportunity for the program to be re-fashioned to deliver better outcomes for
participants and communities.
7.4
In that regard, the committee welcomed the late, confidential submission
by the Minister on the directions he proposes to take in transitioning to a new
model for the program.
7.5
The committee believes that a two-step process is required—comprised of
a transition period followed by implementation of a new program. A transition
period is needed to ensure that the more egregious elements of the CDP are
mitigated whilst consultation and development is undertaken prior to the later
roll-out of a new CDP that is more aligned with community development
expectations and values. This chapter identifies the key characteristics the
program should have.
Transition to the new program
7.6
It is the committee view that the current CDP is not working and that a
new program is required. However, a new program will take time to develop to
ensure that it is underpinned by extensive community and stakeholder
consultation. In the interim, the committee considers that a number of
immediate actions need to be taken to ensure that participants are protected.
Financial penalties
7.7
The committee is concerned that income suspension is having significant
and far-reaching consequences on CDP participants including increasing the rate
and extent of poverty for individuals, their families and communities. In light
of these negative impacts, the committee's view is that immediate action needs
to be taken to alleviate the negative impacts of the current compliance and
financial penalty regime.
Recommendation 1
7.8
The committee recommends that the Australian Government immediately
replace the current CDP compliance and penalty regime with obligations that are
no more onerous than those of other income support recipients. CDP participants
must have the same legal rights and other responsibilities as other income
support participants, taking into account special circumstances such as remote
locations and cultural obligations.
Recommendation 2
7.9
The committee recommends that CDP requirements should be adjusted in
order to ensure that participants are able to meet them for the majority of the
time and are more closely aligned with the requirements of other income support
participants. Those in work or work-like activity should have the general
obligations and benefits of any worker.
7.10
The committee recommends that eight-week serious non-compliance
penalties should not be applied during this transition period except under
exceptional circumstances.
Existing contracts
7.11
The committee sympathises with the concerns expressed by CDP providers
about the uncertainty around the future of CDP funding contracts. There is a
need to provide some certainty for providers to ensure that services continue
to be delivered and that provider's employees remain with providers prior to
the roll-out of the new program. However, the committee also heard repeated
concerns about the quality of services delivered by CDP providers and their
level of community engagement.
Recommendation 3
7.12
The committee recommends that the Department of the Prime Minister and
Cabinet undertake an immediate audit of all existing Community Development
Program providers. The audit should assess service delivery quality, and
employment outcomes in order to inform any extension of contracts until the
roll-out of a new program. In cases where underperformance is identified, the
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet should work to ensure appropriate
action is taken to ensure that providers meet expected standards.
Centrelink
7.13
The committee is concerned about the inadequate access for CDP
participants to Centrelink. The committee has heard consistently throughout the
inquiry about the difficulties that people have communicating with Centrelink
due to long telephone wait times, inadequate infrastructure, no physical
Centrelink presence in many locations and intermittent internet connectivity.
These difficulties lead to delays in people being reconnected to income support
or in some cases, being so frustrated by the process, people walking away from
income support altogether. A lack of interpreter support was also raised as a
contributing factor to these issues.
Recommendation 4
7.14
The committee recommends an audit be conducted of interpreter services
available to clients and Department of Human Services officers. The committee
recommends the Department of Human Services invest in identifying, training and
employing local people in remote communities and community controlled
organisations who can provide Centrelink CDP-related liaison services in local
Indigenous languages.
7.15
The committee endorses the comments by the Australian National Audit
Office (ANAO) in its report on the Administration of the Community Development
Program that 'there would be value in the Department of Employment updating the
guidelines and providing further detail to differentiate the jobseeker
enquiries number from the [Participation Solution Team] PST phone number'.[2]
Recommendation 5
7.16
The committee recommends that Centrelink provides a dedicated telephone
service for CDP participants staffed by officers familiar with the CDP program.
Development of the new program
7.17
The committee has received a considerable amount of evidence suggesting
proposed reforms to the current CDP. The Minister has also indicated that he is
currently reviewing the CDP with a view to reforming the program. The committee
recommends that the Minister and the Australian Government take this
opportunity to transform the CDP in a way that will move away from the current
punitive aspects of the program and move towards a program which benefits
remote communities and the individuals who live in them. The Australian
Government should consider the following elements when developing the new
program.
Consultation and community control
7.18
Many witnesses have told the committee about the failure to involve
Indigenous people in any aspect of the design, delivery or evaluation of the
CDP. The lack of consultation has led many remote communities to feel
disempowered. This is in stark contrast to predecessor programs such as the
Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) where community control and
decision-making were a central program component. The committee reiterates its
view, expressed in Chapter 2, that any changes to the CDP must be based on
genuine and comprehensive consultation, and lead to enhanced empowerment for
remote communities.
Recommendation 6
7.19
The committee recommends that the Department of the Prime Minister and
Cabinet, led by the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, engage in genuine and
comprehensive consultation with remote communities, Indigenous organisations,
employment providers and other stakeholders on the reforms required to be made
to the Community Development Program.
Recommendation 7
7.20
The committee recommends that the reform process for any new program
should be focussed on the goal of community empowerment, and give active
consideration to the proposals as outlined in the Aboriginal Peak Organisations
of the Northern Territory's submission and supported by others. The
establishment of an indigenous-led board and local governance committees as
recommended by Aboriginal Peak Organisations of the Northern Territory should
be considered.
7.21
Communities must be given a greater say in how a community development
program is delivered in their area including the prioritisation of projects and
the nature of approved work activities. Greater community control should
harness the skills, experiences and knowledge of local community and Indigenous
organisations.
7.22
The committee considers that the competitive contracting approach used
in remote areas where markets are thin or non-existent is not sustainable. The
committee notes that in some cases, one employment provider might oversee
multiple CDP regions whilst local organisations—deemed to be unsuitable—are
overlooked.
7.23
The committee acknowledges that circumstances may arise where a
selection panel determines that a local remote and Indigenous organisation does
not meet mandatory selection requirements to deliver services under the new
program for various reasons. The committee is of the view that the government
has an obligation to work with these organisations to build capacity that
enables them to compete with larger, city-based employment providers. Local
knowledge and experience informing appropriate community development consistent
with the unique requirements of each community must form the basis of future
programs.
Recommendation 8
7.24
The committee recommends that the Department of the Prime Minister and
Cabinet provide practical support to local remote and Indigenous organisations
to build governance and service delivery capacity in areas that enables these
organisations to successfully tender for the new community development program.
Wages
7.25
Many witnesses have highlighted the provision of a basic income with a
wage-like structure as one of the more successful elements of the CDEP. It is
the committee's view that such an approach incentivises participation in a community
development program and leads to improved skill development and work
experiences for jobseekers. Importantly, the payment of wages by providers
would remove Centrelink's role administering penalties through income
suspension hence reducing participant's interactions with Centrelink. This
approach would also empower program providers to pay participants wages in
exchange for participation in work activities and training. Payment of wages
would also result in a considerable reduction in the administrative burden for
program providers.
7.26
The committee were concerned to hear that the government is considering
applying the cashless welfare card to CDP participants once the new program is
implemented.[3]
The committee considers that a wage-based approach is incompatible with the use
of the cashless welfare card.
7.27
The committee heard that CDEP had a wages structure that provided close
to a minimum wage. In comparison, CDP provides about half the hourly rate
making it difficult for people to pay for basic items such as food, which are
often more expensive in remote locations. It is the view of the committee that
treating a person like a worker begins by paying a person a minimum wage like a
worker. The committee considers that a wage-like structure should provide a
minimum hourly wage consisting of a supplementary hourly rate for participation
in community development program activities. The supplementary hourly rate
should be the difference between the minimum wage and the person's income
support on a pro-rata basis. This approach would provide a minimum wage for
hours worked and would be consistent with the CDEP.
Recommendation 9
7.28
The committee recommends that the Australian Government implement a
payment scheme for remote jobseekers with income based on participation in
agreed work-like activities, and incentives for additional activities in
community development programs. The committee recommends that participation in
community development program work activities should be compensated at an
hourly rate commensurate with the national minimum wage.
Reduction in administrative burden
7.29
The committee earlier expressed its concern about the unnecessary
administrative burden imposed on CDP providers. In particular, the committee is
concerned that the focus on compliance and record-keeping has diverted
providers from focusing their energies on supporting participants to become
job-ready and promoting community development. The committee is strongly of the
view that providers' resources currently tied up in administrative processes
need to be able to redeployed towards improving and assisting communities and
participants. The committee is confident that transitioning the program away
from compliance and penalties to a wage-based structure will substantially
reduce the administrative burden on providers. It is the committee view that
additional steps should be taken to further streamline administrative
functions.
Recommendation 10
7.30
The committee recommends that the Department of the Prime Minister and
Cabinet carefully consider and, where appropriate, minimise the administrative
processes required of providers engaged in the new community development
program.
Increased transparency
7.31
Notwithstanding the committee's desire to reduce the administrative
burden, the committee agrees that there needs to be far greater transparency
around how public funds are spent on community development programs. This
should include the level of funding that providers receive, how much of that
funding is spent in local communities and, most importantly, how many jobs are
being created as a result of this government expenditure. The committee
understands that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C)
does not require providers to keep data in relation to these metrics. Further, PM&C
and some providers refused to provide the committee with any information that
it did have on the basis that it was commercial-in-confidence. The committee
thanks the CDP providers who provided some of their own information and
statistics to the committee.
7.32
The success or otherwise of a government program can only be measured
through objectively-gathered data-sets that are made publicly available. The
committee concedes that although some data may be deemed to be sensitive and
withheld, for the most part, private companies receiving public funds to
deliver government programs should be accountable for how those funds are
spent. A key component of accountability is transparency in relation to the
expenditure of these funds.
Recommendation 11
7.33
The committee recommends that funding agreements between the Australian
Government and providers delivering services in future community development
programs include a requirement that information on the quantum of funding, the
allocation of funding and the investment in training and basic vocational
skills be collected and made publicly available. The publicly available
financial information should include the dollar value of Centrelink payments
that are foregone by participants due to CDP breaches.
Funded training and start-up
capital
7.34
Currently, providers are not funded to deliver or offer training courses
that would increase the employability of jobseekers. The committee believes
that access to literacy and numeracy education, certified training and
qualifications is an integral element in helping jobseekers into employment and
that this access should be funded as part of any employment program, including
future community development programs.
7.35
Equally, access to sources of capital or lending facilities is critical
to assist people to start their own businesses. The committee heard that remote
jobseekers are often disadvantaged as individuals and families do not have
access to assets or capital to start their own businesses. There are many
opportunities for people to create businesses that can deliver essential
services in their communities or attract tourists to remote locations. The
committee is aware that Indigenous Business Australia offers a range of
business lending products to Indigenous owned businesses. Such products should
be made more readily available to people in remote communities.
Recommendation 12
7.36
The committee recommends that the Department of the Prime Minister and
Cabinet work closely with Indigenous Business Australia (IBA) to ensure that
remote communities are aware of the lending products that IBA can provide and
assist individuals to lodge applications.
Change incentives from attendance
to community development and job creation
7.37
The committee has indicated its preference to change the incentives for
program participants with an earlier recommendation to move to a wage-based
structure. In a similar way, incentives for providers also need to be modified
to ensure that more appropriate outcomes for a future community development
program are achieved.
7.38
Under the current program, providers are incentivised to maximise a
participant's attendance at CDP activities and to focus on contract management.
The committee is firmly of the view that community development program
providers instead need to be creating sustainable jobs and appropriate
community development. This can be achieved through the use of a number of
metrics and a combination of long-term and short-term incentives to ensure that
sustainable employment solutions and appropriate community development are
achieved. It is imperative that one of these metrics must reflect satisfactory
engagement and performance by the provider with the local community.
7.39
The committee considers that the decision to largely remove community
development funding from the CDP and rely on funding for the Indigenous
Advancement Strategy was a mistake and should be reversed. The committee
recommends that community development projects should be adequately and
sustainably funded. These funds should be included as an essential element of
the new remote job service program.
Recommendation 13
7.40
The committee recommends that the penalty funds (breaches) currently
diverted from the community as a result of non-compliance and any ancillary
payments allocated for providers should be applied to support local community
development program activities identified by the community, or to top-up
specific wages where appropriate.
7.41
The committee recommends that the Australian Government provide
additional funding for community development activities, similar to the
Community Development Funding previously available under the Remote Jobs and
Communities Programs.
Targeted infrastructure and service
delivery
7.42
The committee notes that there has been a failure by government to
recognise the lack of public and private sector investment in remote areas. In
turn, this lack of demand has led to a failure by government to recognise or respond
to lack of demand for labour in these places. It is the committee view that
government must play a leading role in stimulating economic demand in remote
communities.
7.43
The objective of full employment is not achievable in all remote
communities, but the committee considers that creating more local jobs
certainly is. The committee acknowledges that government already spends money
on infrastructure and delivery of services in remote locations; however, the
committee's concern lies in how that money might be spent in a more strategic
manner that leads to sustainable jobs.
7.44
Infrastructure spending should not be completed with a boom and bust
mentality, but aim to spread the funding over longer periods of time, so that
the injection of money into the economy is on-going. For example, planned
investment in housing construction can lead to more sustainable job
opportunities and career paths. In this way, qualified tradespeople can mentor
locals through apprenticeships and into sustainable jobs knowing that more
houses will be built over time. The committee has heard anecdotal examples of
such programs that have worked well in the past and considers that such
approaches can work well in the future.
7.45
The committee considers that a strategic infrastructure plan is required
which would involve the Australian Government working closely with state and
territory and local governments to identify all of the infrastructure and
capital works undertaken in remote areas and develop a continuing pipeline of
works. The strategic plan should be updated on an annual basis to ensure a
continuing pipeline of works and maintenance of on-going employment. It is the
committee's view that such a plan should not delay or prevent necessary or
scheduled infrastructure from commencing.
Recommendation 14
7.46
The committee recommends that the Australian Government work closely
with all relevant state and territory and local governments to develop a
five-year strategic plan for infrastructure and service delivery in remote
communities. The strategic plan should be updated annually.
7.47
The committee received evidence about the fly-in fly-out and drive-in
drive-out culture of service provision in remote Australia whereby essential
services providers including healthcare, education and tradespeople move in and
out of communities. The new community development program should be equipping
people from these remote communities to train, qualify and then work in their
local communities delivering services that are being paid for anyway. Instead
of money leaking out of communities, real wages and salaries earned by locals
would instead be spent locally, building the local economy and, in turn,
creating more jobs.
7.48
As a starting point, the committee earlier recommended that local people
in remote communities are identified and trained to provide interpreter and
liaison services for Centrelink. Other service provision should be identified
and prioritised to employ local people. The committee are encouraged by the
training of local paramedics on Palm Island and consider that many other roles
currently staffed by non-locals could also be transitioned to local people.
7.49
In addition, the narrow definition of participation under CDP currently
precludes, from the definition of work, activities that are prioritised by the
community as essential to their local cultural wellbeing and sense of purpose
and identity. Activities such as transmission of cultural knowledge through
language teaching, the arts, traditional knowledge cultivation and caring for
country are highly valued and should be considered as activities that are
defined as work under the refreshed CDP program.
Recommendation 15
7.50
The committee recommends that the Department of the Prime Minister and
Cabinet mandate that all service providers delivering the new community
development program, in consultation with the local community and potential
employers, develop a local jobs plan taking into consideration the
job-readiness of the community. The local jobs plan would seek to transition
service delivery staffed by non-local personnel, apart from highly specialised
professionals, to local employment in a staged manner. In addition, the local
jobs plan should ensure that paid work experience and training positions are
created to enable young people to gain employment experience on leaving school.
Recommendation 16
7.51
The committee recommends that the definition of work activities under
the revised CDP program should be expanded to include cultural transmission
activities that are prioritised by the local community in their local jobs
plans.
Indigenous employment targets
7.52
Related to more targeted infrastructure and service delivery are
Indigenous employment targets. The committee has heard about the use of
Indigenous employment targets in state and territory government contracts and
the inconsistent manner in which they are applied, particularly in remote
communities.
7.53
The committee considers it important to understand the extent to which
Indigenous employment targets are achieved. The ANAO is empowered to conduct
audits of state and territory government contracts where the Australian
Government has made a funding contribution for a particular purpose.[4]
7.54
When applied correctly, the committee considers Indigenous employment
targets to be an integral tool ensuring that public funds expended in remote
locations result in increased local economic activity that leads to sustained
job creation.
Recommendation 17
7.55
The committee recommends that the Australian National Audit Office
conduct an audit of Australian Government contracts that relate to service
delivery in remote locations. This audit should have a specific focus on the
use of, and compliance with, Indigenous Employment Targets.
7.56
As part of this audit, the committee recommends that the Australian
National Audit Office include state and territory government contracts where
the Australian Government has made a funding contribution for a particular
purpose. The audit should also report on how these contracts impact on Closing
the Gap employment targets.
Recommendation 18
7.57
The committee recommends that the Australian Government review the guidelines
for Indigenous employment and work closely with the Council of Australian
Governments in order to establish a uniform approach to the application of
Indigenous Employment Targets to state, territory and Commonwealth contracts in
remote locations. Such an approach should include a mandatory target that forms
the basis of a key performance indicator which is then used to assess the
performance of a contractor for a current contract and used to assess
suitability for subsequent tenders.
Government support for remote
communities
7.58
Several submissions and community consultations expressed frustration
about the perception that engagement of the communities by the PM&C in
managing the CDP program was ineffective. In particular, concerns were
expressed that PM&C officials were not committed to working with local
communities in supporting local decision-making but were constrained by
centralised policy and program decisions provided from Canberra, without
consideration and understanding of local conditions and concerns.
Recommendation 19
7.59
The committee recommends that the Department of the Prime Minister and
Cabinet undertake an organisational review of its regional network to ensure
that it has the capabilities necessary to properly administer a program
featuring decentralised and local decision making focussed on the needs of
remote communities.
7.60
The committee noted the widespread support given to the proposal from
Aboriginal Peak Organisations of the NT (APO NT) for a new remote development
and employment scheme that is place based and community driven. Many of the
issues of concern presented in evidence to the committee would seem to be
addressed by the approach of APO NT but further evaluation of the costs of such
an approach is required.
7.61
In particular, the committee supported the focus of APO NT on the
necessity to ensure rigorous, ongoing evaluation processes into the design and
delivery of the new program. They noted that the issue of evaluation quality
and consistency has been raised frequently in relation to government programs
in Indigenous policies and programs, and that the government intended to ensure
that the Productivity Commission was to play an ongoing role in this domain.
Recommendation 20
7.62
The committee recommends that the Australian Government formally cost
the Aboriginal Peak Organisations of the Northern Territory submission. This
costing should include a comparison to the complete costs of the previous Community
Development Employment Projects (CDEP) and the current CDP, including costs
such as the portion of the Department of Social Services' budget (including
outsourced funding arrangements) spent on administering the CDP.
Recommendation 21
7.63
The committee recommends that the Australian Government, in designing
the new program, ensures that a rigorous, transparent and impartial evaluation
process be developed to guide implementation and delivery. This evaluation
function may be considered as part of the role for the planned Indigenous
Commissioner in the Productivity Commission.
7.64
The committee noted a significant issue of concern raised in many
submissions and community consultations was that the program failed to address
systematically the needs of those participants who have disengaged from the
program. Many of these individuals had disengaged or 'dropped out' due to
repeated experiences of multiple breaches, or of unsatisfactory work experiences.
Recommendation 22
7.65
The committee recommends that during consultations on the new program that
the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and Centrelink actively
explore the reasons for disengagement and seek to develop strategies to address
this issue.
7.66
The committee also recommends that Centrelink take immediate proactive
steps to engage with participants who have disengaged from income support and
employment programs and assist them to reconnect.
Senator Jenny McAllister
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page