Labor Senators note the serious concerns with this Bill identified by a range of stakeholders who made submission and gave evidence to this inquiry.
As noted in the Committee report, on 11 May 2021, the government announced its 2021−22 Budget would include reforms to support:
… Indigenous Australians into quality and long-lasting jobs, strengthening Indigenous businesses and community organisations, and backing its commitment to transform the way governments work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
Labor Senators contend that evidence from submitters and witnesses demonstrate 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.
The Aboriginal Peak Organisations of the NT (APONT) expressed its concerns at continuing an income support rather than job creation model in its submission:
Across remote Australia the main cause of unemployment is lack of available jobs. Lack of opportunity to work and, through that, to acquire skills and employment experience, entrenches long term poverty and social exclusion. Remote Aboriginal communities need more jobs so that more people can secure work and the benefits work brings. This is particularly the case for young people many of whom are leaving education with no option other than ‘working for the dole’. This Bill does not address this challenge. Instead it allows people to work in jobs that would normally be paid while remaining on income support.
The Coalition of Peaks in its submission explained its concerns with the process that resulted in this legislation aimed at replacing a major Government employment program:
That the Coalition of Peaks members in the regions operating CDP nor any other community-controlled organisations appear to have been part of designing the process for the program change, pilot sites or this legislation is however of concern to us. To our communities it suggests the new program has already been agreed. It is unclear to the Coalition of Peaks how the Priority Reform Area 2 of the National Agreement has been enacted in the development of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement Program) Bill 2021 or any related future activity in reforming the remote employment program.
Dr Josie Douglas from the Central Land Council gave compelling evidence to the Senate hearing about the lack of consultation and co-design:
To receive a letter from NIAA on Monday 20 September—the day submissions were due in and the day the inquiry is happening—tells me there's a level of desperation. They are telling the public and telling themselves that there has been consultation and co-design. In all honesty, there has been no consultation, there has been no co-design and there has been no shared decision-making. It's a complete farce.
Labor Senators are disappointed that after years of clear criticism and constructive proposals from the community, the Government has brought forward a bill which merely establishes ‘activities and placements that are like having a job’. This legislation does not include a program that creates jobs in remote communities, nor does it create a pathway to employment for participants. It does not provide for conditions that would apply to a job. Emeritus Professor Jon Altman et al.’s submission explains:
Under a new section 661F, the volunteers will receive payments approximating award wages, and they will not be deemed an employee for the purposes of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992; the Work Health and Safety Act 2011; or the Fair Work Act 2009. In short, the volunteers will not be eligible for compensation, superannuation, or fair work provisions.
APONT expressed these concerns strongly:
Those in receipt of the payment would remain in the income support system. They could be subject to income management. While they would do work that is ‘like a job’, they would not have the rights and protections of other workers. While ordinary workers have a legal relationship with their employer, these workers’ rights and conditions would be determined by Centrelink.
Labor Senators believe that the replacement of the failed CDP is long overdue. But this Bill does not go far enough, and is a squandered opportunity to make a real difference to jobs and the economy in remote Australia. Dr Josie Douglas from the Central Land Council argued this forcefully to the hearing:
Aboriginal people are tired of the endless cycle of poverty, punitive welfare and policy changes that just come out of the blue. In the 21st century it's simply not good enough to have the bureaucracy design yet another version of a failed program.
Dr Douglas further explained the shortcomings of this legislation in job creation and employment:
Instead, it would create a category of people who do work that looks like a job but isn't. They would stay on income support. They would not have a legal relationship with their employer. They would not get superannuation or leave or other entitlements They would be income managed. The government have said that these jobs would be voluntary and they would let people get skills and experience that could lead to a job, but what jobs? The last six years of work for the dole and CDP show that work for the dole does not lead to more jobs. In fact, it leads to fewer jobs because people end up doing work that should be done by paid workers. We are asking for jobs, not more work for the dole.
Evidence given in the Senate inquiry showed that this legislation risks undermining successful jobs on Country, including programs such as Indigenous Rangers. Dr Douglas in her evidence said:
It could be a cheaper version of the current ranger program on offer … We want to make employment the new normal in communities, but this legislation could possibly crowd out other work and crowd out the creation of jobs, because organisations and services will say, 'We've got CDP workers there.' I've been in meetings talking about service provision and have heard, 'We can get CDP workers to do that.' Hang on a minute. If a job needs to be done, it should be paid as a proper job. There should not be the scenario we have now where CDP workers are used to do the work that's a normal job—a job offered by an organisation or a service provider.
Labor Senators share the concerns of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee around the significant matters raised in this legislation, such as qualification requirements and the circumstances where an REP payment would not be payable, that are left to delegated legislation and leave the Minister with broad discretionary powers.
Conclusion
Labor Senators note that while the Bill will potentially facilitate increased payments for some trial participants, the Government has so far announced that only a limited number of people will benefit.
Labor Senators call on the Government to urgently partner with local communities and replace the whole CDP with a new program that will create real jobs with proper pay and conditions, as well as stimulate economic development in remote Australia.
Senator Tim Ayres
Deputy Chair