RESPONSE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE PRIME MINISTER AND CABINET:
DISCUSSION PAPER: REMOTE EMPLOYMENT AND PARTICIPATION
PREPARED BY THE ABORIGINAL POLICY UNIT, DEPARTMENT OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET WESTERN AUSTRALIA
FEBRUARY 2018
Contact:
Submitted by email to:
Contents
1.Executive Summary
2.Consultation on the Paper
3.Background – current CDP model
4.Feedback on Objectives
5.Feedback on Options for a Future Model
6.Operating Principles
1.Executive Summary
The Department of the Premier and CabinetWestern Australia (DPC) welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback on the Commonwealth Governments’ ‘Discussion Paper: Remote Employment and Participation’ (Paper), and seeks ongoing active participation in the re-design of the existing Community Development Programme (CDP).
Whilst the Western Australian Government is supportive of the need to re-redesign the CDP, the Paper’s lack of detail has limited the State Government’s capacity to advise on the proposed options. On the basis of the information provided in the Paper it is too early to comment on which of the model options would best suits the needs of remote communities. In particular, it is unclear how participants in smaller remote communities will engage with the new program.
Present concerns with CDP arise from a lack of consultation with Aboriginal communities, the performance of many of the CDP programs and providers, and the use of financial penalties. Under the current CDP it has become apparent that the system is more complex to navigate and less responsive to individual and community needs.[1]
Realising remote employment and participation will require a significant shift in policies and delivery of the current CDP, one that will genuinely engage Aboriginal communities, and focus on implementing a range of suggested changes.
Lack of employment opportunities in remote areas is a complex issue arising from the broader weak economic position many remote Aboriginal communities are in. It is also associated with the successive polices that have resulted in the defunding of programs, and the removal of service funds from communities to Non-Government Organisations.
Where there is no current labour market, alternative projects must be seen by the community as valuable and of good standing. A revised CDP must engage with people in a meaningful way that matches capacity, aspirations and locational economic reality.
It is suggested that the Commonwealth Government return to the principles of the original Community Development Employment Programme, and take the successful elements from the Working on Country program to provide a more responsive, successful program. New program design for remote employment and participation must be underpinned by principles of place based community co-design through a strengths based community development approach.
The Western Australian Government continues to work towards providing opportunities for remote Aboriginal community members to be involved in economic opportunities. Within Western Australia (WA) the Rangers program has proven to be very successful, with full and continual employment for local community members. During 2018 the Western Australian Government will implement arequirement for 3% of all Western Australian Government contracts to be assigned to Aboriginal corporations as means to building economic independence.
Additionally, there has been a focus on developing skills with a range of Federally funded programs, including the National Partnership on Homelessness targeting homelessness and overcrowding in remote Aboriginal communities. This program has given the opportunity for local Aboriginal people to undertake apprentices and traineeships in the construction field and is providing an opportunity for many Aboriginal people to develop skills and knowledge that can be utilised in the community and improve the day to day life of many people. It will also allow many who have developed these skills to seek in community employment with government departments to deliver community services.
2.Consultation on the Paper
The Department of Premier and Cabinet has sought input from State Government departments on the Paper[2]This consultation included inputs from the Department of Communities’ Regional Service Reform Unit’s (RSRU) 2017 consultations with over 200 remote communities in WA. Whilst the consultations didn’t follow a specific framework, or probe on specific themes or issues, feedback on CDP from the consultations was drawn upon in RSRU’s submission on the Paper.
Other sources of information, such as non-government organisations submissions to CDP/related inquiries, community feedback and academic sources have also been utilised in reviewing the Paper.[3]
3.Background – current CDP model
The CDP has undergone a range of changes from its inception, with the current model being introduced in 2015.
Evaluations of the currentCDP modelhave raised a number of issues, which need to be addressed in any re-design of the program. These issues include:
The programarguablydiscriminates against Aboriginal people, primarily in remote areas, through thecompulsory number of hours required to work i.e. 25 per week under CDPcompared with 15 per week for other “work for the dole” programs.
Multiple financial penalties for late attendance or missing work have resulted in increasing levels of poverty in communities, particularly for participants with children. This has compounded poverty and social exclusion, and discouraged hope and opportunity within communities.
A lack of understanding linked to cultural responsibilities by providers has frequently resulted in participants being financially penalised when leaving the program to attend culture obligations.
A notable lack of interaction between participants and providershas resulted in a lack of support for participants and activities.
There has been limited interaction by providers with Aboriginal community councils and their plans for growth and economic participation.
The program has failed to deliver the objectives stated i.e. progression to full time employment. In 2015, Kellard et al , found that only an additional 2 points was gained in the probability of job seekers obtaining work in remote areas. As there are Work for the Dole components embedded within the CDP program, this research shows that benefits are marginal, if existing at all.
The program does not providebasic employment entitlements such as annual leave payment, sick or cultural leave, and superannuation for participants.
The current model of Remote Jobs and Communities Program has been characterised by a lack of control/management by the communities and has therefore removed many of the principles the CDEP originally defined as goals, i.e. for community to administer wages, define work properties and other aspects of the program.
4.Feedback on Objectives
While the DPC supports the objectives in principle, there are many details that are insufficiently dealt with. These matters require adequate consideration if the objectives are to be met.
TheDPC is fully supportive of the intention toincrease local service deliveryand make local decisions based on local needs. In this regard, alignment with community needs and strengths is paramount.
The concept of streamlining processes and procedures to ensure a smoother management system that is more responsive to the participant’s needs is also strongly supported.
The concept of providing support for individual barriers that preclude Aboriginal people from obtaining employment is also supported, albeit there has been no mention of how this will be done, who will be responsible or how it will be funded.
5.Feedback on Options for a Future Model
The findings of the State Governmentremote community consultation highlight a lack of specific details, and a range of complexitiesfor the options proposed. All options have associated levels of risk regarding community driven opportunities, aligning CDP activities to the development of the community and a continuing risk of increased poverty.
More information is required before the DPC could offer its full support for any one of the models outlined in the Paper.
Option 1 – Wage based model
It is essential that support services are integrated with the new programme to address barriers and capacity issues. Additional resourcing will be required to meet individual case management approach proposed under this option. The terminology and classification of the three tier approach should adopt a positive narrative avoiding the deficit based approach.
No reference is made to movement between tiers, for example, to changes in life circumstances and the potential to incur penalties.
Tier 1
It is recognised that vulnerable job seekers, and job seekers with a limited capacity require a more personal, individuallevel of support and education.Simplifying the burden of the interaction with the Department of Human Servicesis supported and will significantly reduce the anxiety inherent with the existing procedure.
However, there needs to be further details regarding how this will be implemented and what funds will be made available for this type of intensive support.
Tier 2
It is unclear if the proposal for an enhanced welfare payment is an income higher than the standard Centrelink payment.
There is no mention in the Paper of the level the training wage will be set at, if work experience travel and accommodation will be supplied or funded through the program. Furthermore, the concept of a ‘no show no pay’ has inherent dangers linked to food security, ability to pay for the basics of life and medical needs. This type of system places sole responsibility on the worker but fails to ensure that they have access to sick or maternity leave, paid holidays or superannuation. It places an unequal burden on the participant and fails to offerany what could be classified as “normal working benefits”.
Tier 2 also needs to elaborate on details regarding the “pathway to existing or future job opportunities” or how this will be managed in very remote or discreet community.
This option also seems to imply an employer/employee relationship, yet the responsibilities of this relationship are unclear.
Tier 3
There is substantial support for the aim of Tier 3, and the ongoing economic growth and development linked to Aboriginal people.
However, the Option fails to detail the level of wage, what type of post placement support would be offered, and given the limited number of subsidised jobs, what alternatives will be offered to community members who are job ready.
Option 2- CDP 2
The current CDP model has failed to produce local results, and in many cases has failed due to the distance between the provider and the participants. The distance has manifested in less supervision, less involvement by community members and less community development.
The fundamentals of Option 2 appear to be a solution to the distance problem, by the introduction of local control payments and locally driven work activities. But again there is insufficient information regarding payments source, compliance issues, or if the primary activities will ensure that the community needs and objectives as a whole not just individuals.
Work activities including supporting teachers in the local school, ensure that children learn their language and culture, meals-on-wheels type service or home care for elderly would provide not only work activities for participant but would also provide a valuable service for the community members.
Option 2 appears to imply an employer-employee relationship between the participants and the providers but how the relationships are balanced,and within what frame it sits, is unclear. It has also failed to state what will occur if a community decides not to implement this model or if a community is incapable of assuming responsibility for this program.
Option 3 – CDP with improvements
As with the previous Options, there is significant support for assistingindividuals to achieve their full potential through programs that increase their literacy and numeracy.
However, there are several areas with Option 3 that appear to be either unfair or unequal when compared to the provision within the wider community. Under the current provisions a similar work for the dole system only requires 12 hours of “work” over a 1-weekperiod, but within remote Aboriginal communities this has been extended to “daily activities” totalling 25 hours per week. There is no clear expectation noted for employers or providers, nor for the responsibility of the participant in this situation.
6.Operating Principles
The DPC proposes that the following key principlesare addressed in revisions to the revised optionsfor a new CDP model.
Place based community co-design and control
Local ownership in the design of any new program must be embedded to empower communities to enhance their own communities through projects which are developed and managed by community.
Adoption of a place-based approach for design of program activities must underpin local ownership. WA remote and regional communities are typically smaller than those in other states and the Northern Territory which impact accessibility and access to jobs. Each community has specific goals and needs and CDP activities must reflect local priorities and challenges. Together with greater local content, this approach could uncover local labour market/business needs and gaps to boost opportunities for Aboriginal-owned businesses.
CDP providers must have local knowledge and experience working with communities and there must be stronger information sharing and communication between CDP providers, Aboriginal-owned businesses and job participants.
The new program should mandate identification of current and future local economic opportunities asa critical first step for planning and development of CDP activities. Co-design of the plan between community, CDP providers, local business and other stakeholders would enable community members to determine their participation in activities. This could also provide opportunities for mentoring community members into governance and leadership roles.
To achieve genuine community ownership, the new CDP model must also enable communities to choose their CDP provider.
Any new program also needs to highlight the role of community councils, native title bodies etc. which exist in communities as conduits, enablers and primary decision-makers in social and economic development opportunities. The varying capacity and capability of these bodies and necessary support for them as channels for community’s aspirations through CDP must also be considered.
Real jobs linked to local opportunities
CDP participants from remote WA communities have voiced concerns that CDP is not seen as an adequate pathway to real jobs as it lacks real training initiatives and job opportunities.
Jobs availability in remote WA communities presents as a key challenge – where there is no current labour market, the alternative projects must be seen by the community as valuable and of good standing.
To further stimulate the local job market beyond the inclusion of subsidised jobs in a new model, and to incentivise employers to hire local people and support them to stay in work, incorporating the requirement for local labour in contracts may address some of the labour demand issues. It will be essential to incorporate the voice of participants in contract development as a design feature.
CDP providers should encourage training and work experience participation in Aboriginal-owned business to support future job prospects and alternative CDP activities could include business training and support to Aboriginal owned business. Linked to this, employers should be encouraged to engage local CDP participants if working in remote areas.
CDP providers should also encourage the development of programs that allow community members to stay in their community and not be a burden to housing, services and infrastructure in other locations.
Frequently the attitude of “change for change sake” is found in the activities. This is seen as counterproductive and of no benefit to the community or participant. If it is not possible for the activities to replicate work related tasks, the tasks need to be developed in consultation with community councils. The work related tasks need to be broadened to work with community strengths, and the economic and social needs of participants and their community.
Flexibility in program design and implementation
Overall there needs to be wider variety of activities to be included within any revised program. There is a need to build in flexibility for cultural and family commitments, for example, lore and mobility. CDP providers will need to work with communities to identify goals and activities that address such community needs. Examples of alternative activities linked to place and culture could include hunting to source food for communities and transportation of goods and services/people in remote communities.
A new model must recognise the unrealistic expectation that is currently in place requiring participants to engage 25 hours per week for 52 weeks per year. There is need for flexibility within the system that recognised cultural needs, holiday, sick and maternity leave, and the inability to contact providers when unable to meet the requirements.
In terms of how a new model could better take into account community, family and cultural responsibilities, it is unclear what is meant by ‘any funding that does not flow to the job seeker could be reinvested back into the community’. The cultural impacts of this would need to be considered. Rostering and/or shift work could be introduced, particularly for activities with tight specific timeframes.