Vince Connelly (Stirling, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given that I am now in continuation, I will reflect very briefly on some of the sentiment that I expressed yesterday. Fundamentally, it is this: with employment comes a greater sense of both dignity and self-worth for the person who is filling that role. I'm sure that all those joining me in the chamber today, and the great many listening online as well, feel the same way—that not only are there extrinsic rewards in being able to take home a salary, there are intrinsic rewards in having a sense of purpose. Providing a good or a service is valued out there in the community and brings a sense of dignity and self-worth. It is against that backdrop that this current bill is absolutely positioned.

According to an AIHW report titled 'Australia's welfare 2021', Indigenous employment rates reduced from 54 per cent to 49 per cent in the period of 2007-08 and 2018-19, while the rate for non-Indigenous Australians' employment remains stable at around 76 per cent. The report also tells us that, in 2018-19, Indigenous Australians were less likely to be employed the further away from a major city they lived. So it's clear that as a nation we must adapt and evolve to better meet new and existing challenges.

The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement Program) Bill 2021 will provide a framework for piloting new approaches to delivering employment services in remote communities ahead of implementing the government's budget announcement that the Community Development Program, or CDP, will be replaced in 2023. The bill builds on the Australian government's commitment to reform of employment services and it's a critical component of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap. The bill will establish a new supplementary payment for eligible jobseekers in remote engagement program pilot sites who volunteer to participate in placements that are like having a job. I note that the definition of eligible jobseekers is as follows: 'Someone receiving a qualifying income support payment who receives employment services from a remote engagement program service provider and who has agreed to participate and is participating in an eligible placement with a host organisation for at least 15 hours each week.' I further note that the supplementary payment provided to eligible jobseekers participating in the program will not be subject to an income test. The placements will build participants' skills to deliver goods and services to the benefit of their local communities, and provide a pathway for jobseekers to find a job. And that end goal of a job is the key driver of this policy. As we know, and as we have, rightly, oft heard repeated, the very best form of welfare is of course a job.

It's important to note that what is proposed in this bill is a pilot. The pilot will support collaboration with communities to develop an appropriately flexible program that will build the skills and vocational capabilities of people in remote communities. This is an approach that will put people living in remote communities at the heart of related decision-making. As with any pilot, it is anticipated that adjustments may be made throughout the process, and the government welcomes the opportunity to work with people living in remote communities to develop a policy that empowers them to shape their own future. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

Patrick Gorman (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Western Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Vulnerable Australians deserve support and vulnerable Australians deserve programs that actually work to ensure they have the opportunities that most of us in this place have enjoyed for our entire lives. Unfortunately, I believe that the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement Program) Bill 2021 shows that the Morrison government doesn't truly understand how to provide the sorts of social services that are needed in the sorts of communities that we're talking about in this bill.

What we've seen with the Community Development Program as it has operated for many years is that it has experienced many problems and actually lacks the ability to get people into long-term work. Surely, if we're going to put the test on any of these pieces of legislation then this has to be the ultimate goal: does it get people into long-term work? We've seen significant failures in the Community Development Program, highlighted to the government when the Senate inquiry which was launched into it five years ago noted that the government had failed to listen to what communities and stakeholders had said and had failed to work with them in developing the sorts of programs that communities actually wanted.

Unfortunately, having read through this bill, the explanatory memorandum and everything else, there's still no path for long-term, quality and lasting jobs for the people who participate in these programs. This legislation is a missed opportunity. We need fundamental reform of the CDP; we need fundamental reform that listens to the concerns that have been raised with the government and with agencies for years and years and years now. That this is all we have to show for those concerns is deeply disappointing.

We talk about co-design, and the bill has a lot of language about co-design in it. But I've looked at the people who have been involved in the co-design and what they're actually saying about the bill. Surely, if someone believes in co-design they start with that co-design when they actually write the legislation in the first place rather than kicking it off down the road as a piece of work to be done later. Aboriginal Peak Organisations Northern Territory stated:

Remote Aboriginal communities need more jobs so that more people can secure work and the benefits work brings. … 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.

That's what they said. This is a program that leaves people on income support while they're doing work that would otherwise be paid as a job. It doesn't have jobs and it doesn't have a pathway. I heard a number of members opposite roll out the classic line 'the best form of welfare is a job'. Well, that's a great little grab quote but, unfortunately, the best form of job-creating legislation is legislation that actually gives people jobs, and this does not do that.

Labor has committed very firmly to scrapping the CDP and replacing it with a new program, a program which gives people real jobs with proper wages. That's how you give people fundamental dignity, and that's how you deliver on truly transformative change in the sorts of communities that we are trying to help. That's also how you get real buy-in for co-design. If you're serious about co-design, then you are serious about making sure that you have a pathway to a job at the end. Co-design is essential for success, is part of a strong policy process and is part of an ongoing policy process that should have started in the drafting of this legislation rather than being left to legislative instruments down the track.

We can't ignore that the problems that this bill seeks to address have been problems that have been known to people in this place for a number of years. The Australia Institute report, titled Remote control:The Community Development Program, remote Australia's Work for the Dolescheme, highlights in detail the problems that have been in this scheme for years. This was a report that was released in 2018. They note that the regions where this program is operating have unemployment rates of up to 51 per cent. That is, where the program is supposedly successful, we're seeing unemployment of up to 51 per cent. They noted the huge concerns with human rights as the CDP pays below minimum wage. In 2018 they noted that the payment for work on this program was $11.20 per hour, well below the minimum wage. On top of that, despite working for below minimum wage pay, a person who is part of the CDP is more than 25 times more likely to receive a penalty than a participant in the urban Australia jobactive program which operates in my electorate. People on these programs were 55 times more likely to receive a serious penalty, and these penalties aren't just a written warning. It's not just something that goes on a record; it's a financial penalty where people then find they don't have enough money to pay for their kids' food, that they don't have enough money to pay for the very essentials that they've been going to work in this program to deliver. It actually demotivates people. It disconnects people's association with work, because they are in a penalty based regime where the only incentives are penalties—there is not a job at the end of the program.

The analysis by the Australia Institute looked at what actually happened, the results of the program. Their analysis showed that less than one in five participants were supported into a proper permanent job and less than one in 10 participants remained in that job for more than six months. On average, a participant would have to spend 9.5 years in the scheme before achieving the 13-week employment outcome or 12.7 years in the scheme for achieving a 26-week employment outcome.

Further, like many things, including Indue cards and other pieces this government is obsessed with, this program is incredibly expensive. Analysis shows that for every dollar that a recipient receives in income support approximately 70 cents is spent administering the scheme. So, for every dollar that you push out the door, it's costing you 70 cents. I don't know how that, in any way, is a good spend of taxpayers' money. I don't understand how that is possibly a fair way to use taxpayers' money or if it's the most effect of use if you are trying to create jobs in regional Australia. To put that in terms of what it's actually cost taxpayers, the 2,682 part- and full-time jobs with 26-week employment outcomes cost $360 million per year to operate. That amount could directly employ 19,700 people for 26 weeks full-time.

Like many in this place I regularly travel to regional centres. Because of border arrangements, that has been focused very much on regional Western Australia for this year. You see the importance of jobs. You see the importance of investing in our regional centres. Recently I was in Kalgoorlie, where I met with Training Alliance Group. They are a Job Network provider. They help people into work They have a facility on the main street of Kalgoorlie where I met with a bunch of young students and talked to them about what they wanted to get, what their hopes were. It was great to sit and speak with them about how excited they were about the sorts of jobs they might be able to do in the future. They were also learning some pretty high tech skills. The member for O'Connor may have also been there and played the same Street Fighter II console that I did that had actually been built by the students—building a video-game arcade thing, learning some tech skills, as a way to re-engage students who had otherwise become disengaged with school, back into work.

But, wherever you go across Western Australia, you are confronted by the fact that there are not enough skilled workers. The skills crisis in this country is getting worse, not better. I've heard about the challenges of finding childcare educators in Tom Price, where the limits on child care are being driven by the huge challenge of accommodation pressures and the challenge of getting people with qualifications in early childhood education to Tom Price. In Albany, I've heard about the challenge of getting truck drivers. In fact, basically anywhere you go in WA, even in the city, you hear about the need for more truck drivers on our roads to help with logistics, to help with the mining industry, to help with the agricultural industry and more. There are challenges in Geraldton with aged-care workers. There are tourism providers who are facing unique challenges in terms of a different customer base but also the need for different skills across the state. So we do have jobs, but the program in this legislation doesn't do the hard work of connecting people to those jobs.

One successful program that I was fortunate to go out and see in the member for O'Connor's electorate recently is the Esperance Tjaltjraak Cultural Rangers. It is an amazing program that I know the member for O'Connor and many in this place—and I was there with the member for Fremantle—recognise as a successful demonstration of an Indigenous rangers program. It provides community education and school programs. They're preventing invasive species taking over beautiful native vegetation, working on developing and protecting cultural sites, doing the very important work of rehabilitation and also the important work of tourist education. This is a successful program. We should have more focus on these successful programs. We should also acknowledge that there are challenges when it comes to making sure that the people who participate in these programs have access to all the other services that we rely on to have a successful working life, whether that is childcare services, whether it's in terms of access to government agencies or whether it's in terms of access to health services.

I'm really concerned, still, as many are in this place, that unfortunately there is a city-regions divide when it comes to the rollout of the vaccine. Clearly, we have not given enough support to Indigenous organisations, Aboriginal controlled health organisations, to be part of the partnership to roll out the vaccine. Now, I understand that, for many, many months, there were not enough vaccines to roll out, so that would have been pointless. But now we have to be honest. In Coolgardie, less than 50 per cent of the population have had their first dose; Waddington, 60 per cent; Kalgoorlie, 60 per cent. We need a plan from this government to fix the vaccination rollout in our regions, because, if we don't have that, we're going to see more people miss out on job opportunities and more people miss out on the ability to re-engage with the workforce, which is exactly what this legislation seeks to do.

I note that Aboriginal Peak Organisations Northern Territory have serious concerns about this legislation. One of their biggest concerns is the effect of the bill on those receiving payments. In their submission to one of the inquiries into this bill, they noted:

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.

There are a whole bunch of problems tied up in just that one quote. These people would remain in the income support system, despite the fact that they were working; they would have no protections as employees; and, despite working and earning their income, they could be subject to income management. Unfortunately, I believe that this is part of this government's sick obsession with telling people how to spend their money. Their obsession with income management and cashless debit cards is something that seems to pervade every area of government policy. We know that the government have said they want this to be a mainstream part of how they roll out government funding. I am a very strong supporter of the member for Bruce and his private member's bill to make sure that we stop this in its tracks, because who knows where it ends?

Around Australia, we see that this cashless debit card system is already creeping its tentacles all over the place. In parts of Western Australia, people on the disability support pension and carer payments are already being put onto the cashless debit card. In Far North Queensland you've got aged pensioners being placed onto this card. When you think about this, if you start to normalise that for people in their working life, and then you normalise it once they stop working, once they hit retirement age, that's a real concern. There are 2.6 million aged pensioners in Australia, with 241,000 of them in Western Australia. I don't want to see a situation under this system where someone is forced to work for below minimum wage for years on end with no promise of a proper job, and then, once they have worked below minimum wage with no promise of a job and get to retirement age, is forced onto a cashless welfare system. That's not how you treat people. It's not forward-thinking policy. This legislation doesn't do anything to send us in the right direction.

Rick Wilson (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will begin by reminding the member for Perth that it's a very serious offence to mislead the House. The member made a statement that there are pensioners in Queensland that are forced onto the cashless debit card. I'm not aware that that's the case. I will check that with the minister for social services. There's a cashless debit card trial across my electorate, with 3½ thousand people on the card, and I'm not aware of one pensioner who is on the card. I will be checking that, and I will be bringing that to the attention of the House if it's proved be incorrect.

The main substance of what I'm here for today is to—

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for O'Connor will resume his seat. The member for Perth, on a point of order?

Patrick Gorman (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Western Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member mischaracterised me. He used the word 'forced'. I do not recall using the word 'forced'.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What's your point of order?

Patrick Gorman (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Western Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask him to withdraw. He misquoted me.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't think now's the time. You can make an explanation later, by all means. The member for O'Connor will resume.

Rick Wilson (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm here today to support the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement Program) Bill 2021. This is one component of legislation that will help enable jobseekers in some of the most isolated Australian communities, including communities in my electorate, to access job skills training appropriate to the employment opportunities in their particular community.

I would like to acknowledge that this is a good outcome for the remote Ngaanyatjarra lands in my electorate of O'Connor. I will also give the member for Perth a bit of advice: you can fly in to Esperance, you can fly in to Albany and you can fly in to Kalgoorlie, but if you jump in a car and drive 1,000 kilometres north-east of Kalgoorlie you get to the town of Warburton; that's where the really remote communities in my electorate are. You drive through Leonora, Laverton and Menzies along the way, and it would be good to drop in and talk to some people there about the cashless debit card. Anyway, the NG lands, as I will abbreviate them, have been announced as one of the five pilot sites for the Morrison government's new remote engagement program, which will work towards devising a needs based job training program to replace the current Community Development Program.

While the bill is being introduced and debated throughout this spring period, to help provide the framework for this pilot, I'm pleased to see that the NG lands are finally getting the autonomy they have long been calling for. This will enable them to design a program that will be better targeted to the needs of their people. Unlike many remote Indigenous communities, there are in fact highly-paid job opportunities within the NG lands. The Great Central Road already carries a significant volume of tourist traffic—outside of COVID—as people travel from Uluru through the NG lands to Laverton and the Northern Goldfields gateway into WA. Also, construction is progressing well on the Outback Way, Australia's longest shortcut, which connects Winton in western Queensland to the Northern Goldfields in WA. The Outback Way will not only create an iconic new trans-Australian tourist route but also provide a vital logistics corridor for the movement of agricultural produce, livestock, mining and freight between Queensland, the Northern Territory and WA. Shire of Ngaanyatjarraku Shire President Damien McLean, his council and the Ngaanyatjarra Land Council have long called for changes to the current Community Development Program. So I am pleased to see that this opportunity has become available to them.

In a nutshell, the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement Program) Bill 2021 will establish a new supplementary payment for eligible jobseekers in remote engagement program pilot sites who will participate in placements that are job-like. These placements will build participants' skills and deliver goods and/or services and benefits to their local communities and provide a pathway for jobseekers into a job. In short, it will enable supplementary payments beyond the current working age of welfare payments to be made to those jobseekers who engage in meaningful job training in a real-life working environment. I can't pre-empt the outcome of these community consultations but, for the NG lands, this may present opportunities towards training in hospitality, in tourism, in Indigenous arts and crafts, in the highly paid jobs of the many mining operations nearby or in road construction of the Outback Way and the associated freight logistics that will ultimately follow.

I'm excited about what this program may mean for many of my remote shires who have long found that the CDP does not deliver for their communities. Many of these shires have found an opportunity to create their own remote jobs engagement program through being part of the cashless debit trial. Interestingly, Labor have just introduced their own bill, aimed at scrapping the cashless debit card, which will destroy the Job Ready Pilot Program that is currently operating in the adjacent Northern Goldfields shires of Laverton, Leonora and Menzies as well as the Shire of Coolgardie—all shires where the CDP does not meet the needs of their jobseekers. So the Job Ready Program is already a component of the cashless debit card trial that has been operating in the Goldfields since March 2018.

Yesterday the member for Bruce—it's good to see him here today to hear my contribution—introduced his bill, which, if successful, will force the premature termination of the cashless debit card trial not only in my electorate but also across the other trial sites. I can only speak to my own personal experience, being closely connected to the shires of Laverton, Leonora, Menzies and Coolgardie as well the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder, but I don't believe the member for the Bruce has ever visited or consulted with any of the above. For the benefit of the member for Bruce and his Labor colleagues: these shires volunteered to be part of the cashless debit card trial. They hoped it would be a tool to help address the social harm occurring in their communities as a result of welfare dollars being spent on alcohol, drugs and gambling rather than on the necessities of life. If only the member for Bruce had been in Leonora the day a second teenager in that one week had taken their life.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Bruce, on a point of order?

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I actually wish to seek an intervention under standing order 66(a).

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will the member yield?

Rick Wilson (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought he might want to stop misleading the House and I could put some questions to him so that he could make a more informed speech.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for O'Connor will continue.

Rick Wilson (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If only the member for Bruce had been in Leonora the day that that teenager took her life—the day when respected Aboriginal elder Gay Harris urged me to find a way to help solve some of the endemic issues of child-sex abuse, teen despair, family domestic violence and the breakdown of the fabric in her community.

In the following months then Minister for Human Services, Alan Tudge, came to these communities not once but many times. The Department of Social Services also came and consulted widely with the communities of all five Goldfields local government authorities. From memory, there were over 250 consultations hosted by the DSS, and I also conducted my own surveys and consultations. These shires represented their community needs and aspirations and they lobbied tirelessly the many ministers, and even the Prime Minister, when they visited the Goldfields to consult on and to announce the Goldfields cashless debit card trial. For the five shires of the Goldfields and for my colleagues who have CDC trial sites in their electorates of Grey, Durack and Hinkler, this Labor proposal to bring forward the sunset date of the existing cashless debit card legislation will undo the great work well underway. I wonder if the member for Bruce has even asked any of these communities what they want and how it can be best achieved.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Have you read the bill?

Rick Wilson (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government certainly has and we've funded it too. Since the cashless debit card program first started in 2016, the coalition has provided more than $13 million to deliver complementary and support services at all trial sites. That investment has been used to support drug and alcohol rehabilitation services, community hubs, family and children's programs, financial counselling and wellbeing programs and more. In the recent budget, this government announced a $30 million job-ready initiative to improve employment outcomes and opportunities in the cashless debit card trial sites, which also coincide mostly with the CDP sites, which are currently following their own jobs training initiatives tailored to the employment prospects in their particular geographical areas.

The entire Goldfields actually has a chronic shortage of workers, and many of the 1,000-plus job vacancies are actually for unskilled and low-skilled positions—effectively starter jobs. Many of these job opportunities provide training towards formal qualifications, but even a lower skilled job still require a degree of job readiness that many working-age welfare recipients have to date been unable to achieve and haven't been provided. That's why shires like Laverton are grateful for the nearly half a million dollars from the federal government to establish and deliver job readiness training for jobs available in their patch. This is why they've engaged an experienced job readiness trainer, Mr Mac Jensen, who has a proven track record of working with, particularly, Aboriginal youth, providing them with the necessary skills to secure and retain a job.

I want to digress for a minute. One of the privileges of our job is that we've all come across remarkable people in our travels. I see the member for Lingiari has joined us, and I'm sure he would have many stories to relate as well. Mac Jensen, who's a former Army officer, who worked with NORFORCE, who's worked with Aboriginal people in Aboriginal communities most of his working life, set up a program in the town of Wiluna in the northern Goldfields, a very isolated community with mining opportunities around the town. He engaged with the local Aboriginal people, particularly the families, identified those who really wanted to find the work and change the circumstances in which they lived, and he ran a program in Wiluna which revolved around road construction. The state government, the WA government, to their credit stumped up the funding for five kilometres of road construction and sealing on the Wiluna to Meekatharra road, which his team worked on and honed their skills. Eight of the 12 people involved in that program are now in full-time work, which is a remarkable outcome. We've seen many of these programs that have come and gone and haven't delivered the goods. Certainly Mac Jensen is right on the money.

The City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder has been granted almost $1 million to coordinate job-ready training activities for over 2,000 cashless debit card participants and to provide support for the job-ready training activities for the surrounding shires. Yesterday a federal grant round closed which had invited community groups to put forward their ideas and proposals for increasing engagement and opportunities in their regions. So, while Labor claim that instead of the cashless debit card they will provide an employment program in these communities, it seems they haven't done their homework because these actions are already in motion. Bringing forward the termination of the cashless debit card program to January 2022 will only launch the Goldfields cashless debit card trial sites and the over 3,000 participants into disarray. Labor's reckless plan to scrap the cashless debit card will put vulnerable people in these communities back at risk.

I can tell you from firsthand experience that children who went to school hungry are now being fed at home or purchasing food with the cashless debit card, so much so that school meals programs have been scrapped at some primary schools. Elders who volunteered to be put on the cashless debit card now avoid the humbugging and elder abuse they used to endure. Mothers and grandmothers now have money on their visa debit card to buy groceries, toys and clothes. When available as cash, this has been squandered in the past on gambling or the purchase of alcohol and drugs. Whilst it's never been claimed that the cashless debit card will be the universal panacea, it has been working well in addressing some of the social harm previously experienced in the Goldfields region of my electorate. So, while Labor are intent on undoing the great results the cashless debit card program has had thus far, I remain committed to helping unemployed Goldfields constituents and their community stabilise their lives. I commend the bill to the House.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for External Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement Program) Bill 2021 and the amendment moved by the member for Barton. I say to the member for O'Connor, who just spoke: I've met Mac Jensen at Wiluna, and you're right. He's a person with a great deal of drive and commitment, and he does an outstanding job. He is someone who has done his bit, if I might put it that way. I won't make any other observations about the member for O'Connor's speech. I just want to talk about this bill. It would have been helpful if the member for O'Connor had done that.

This bill, in my view, is an absolute acknowledgement of the failure of the government's Community Development Program. What an absolute disaster it was when the old CDEP scheme, the Community Development Employment Program, was abolished by the Howard government. The stupidity of the abolition of the CDEP scheme was acknowledged by subsequent Prime Minister Tony Abbott when he said, 'Abolishing CDEP was a well-intentioned mistake, and CDP is our attempt to atone for it.' What a miserable observation, frankly. The CDEP scheme should never have been abolished. I might say that I'm somewhat ashamed that the former Labor government, subsequent to the Howard government, continued with the process to abolish the CDEP scheme by putting a sunset clause in place. I opposed that.

I worked on a report on the initial CDEP scheme in 1979 and 1980 in the Pitjantjatjara homelands area of the north-west of South Australia and into the Ngaanyatjarra of Western Australia. I saw an observation only a day or so ago by people saying that getting rid of the CDP is in part to stop people getting sit-down money. Let me make it very clear. CDP is a welfare program. CDEP was a work program. It's worth contemplating that CDEP was part-time work for part-time pay at award-equivalent wages. There were deficiencies—superannuation wasn't paid and sick leave and long service leave weren't given. They were absolute deficiencies of the program.

It's worth reflecting on how the CDEP started. The program started in the early 1970s. The process commenced in the early 1970s when Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory said to the government: 'We're sick of getting unemployment benefits. We don't want sit-down money. We want to have our communities work for the money they're receiving.' The first communities involved in this were Barunga, then Beswick outside of Katherine, and then Kalkarindji, or what is now known as Wave Hill walk-off country. What happened was that the government, under an enlightened social security minister at the time, Margaret Guilfoyle, a Liberal minister, agreed that what they would do was accept paying the unemployment equivalent for the community that they were addressing. The sum of that money was paid to the community for distribution by the community, which distributed the money in a way that met their priorities and made sure people did something in return for that income. That evolved into the Community Development Employment Program which, as I said, was part-time work for part-time pay at award rates. That happened as the result of an initiative by Aboriginal people; it didn't come from government. And to hear people in this place disparage the intent of Aboriginal people across this country to seek employment options and to imply that somehow or another they don't want to work because of the failure of CDP is an absolute insult. What we know—and this is apparent, as I've experienced it over many years now—is that there aren't sufficient jobs for all working-age people in remote communities. I'm sure the member for O'Connor understands that.

Each of these communities has their own discrete small-area labour markets, which are not really understood at the macro level. Where the population is rising relatively quickly in comparison with the rest of the Australian population, large numbers of young people are left looking for an opportunity. They don't want to leave their home communities, but if they're lucky enough to have an education they might be attracted to go off and do further training. But what they need is labour market intervention; what they need is an investment in a program that will create work opportunities which are defined by the communities themselves. That's what CDEP used to be; it was controlled and managed locally, by local organisations. They determined the nature of work to be undertaken and the people who were to do that work, and those people were paid award wage equivalents. If someone didn't go to work then they didn't get paid.

This was a very popular program because it also allowed wage top-ups; if people undertook jobs and worked for their 15 hours and there was still work available in that workplace, they could get that work and be paid a wage top-up for doing that work, and at the award wage equivalent. It was a very successful program. It wasn't perfect, by any stretch, and in some places the administration left something to be desired. But what we need to understand is that we need to give people back that responsibility.

CDP took that responsibility away, breached people needlessly and caused people to suffer. It was a welfare program and it is a welfare program. What we're after now—and communities have argued for this for a long time—is for them to have control. They expect to do the work, but they need to be paid proper award rates and they need to have their income guaranteed. They understand the penalties of not going to work. They need to be paid superannuation and they need to be given entitlements. That's something which can be done, and I'm sure that the economic benefit of doing that sort of investment would far outweigh the costs in the long-term of not proceeding with such a proposal.

A new job-creating Community Development Program should at least have the following objectives: decision-making powers should be devolved to local communities and local community organisations; the objective, of course, should be to provide work opportunities and training opportunities where they're relevant; and to alleviate the issues of lack of access to jobs, low-income-support payments, remoteness and small community size, and the current welfare conditionality that imposes income penalties and barriers in gaining access to appropriate payments.

It's worth noting that the August report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, Report on Indigenous participation in employment and business, contemplated the failure of CDP and made the following recommendations:

The committee recommends that in engaging in the process of codesign, the Australian Government should consider incorporating the following elements into the redesign of the Community Development Program:

These are entirely sensible recommendations, not reflected in the government's CDP or its reform.

Whilst the government talk about co-design, what we do know is that they've chosen five sites, we're told, for a total of 200 people in this trial, over two years—bizarre. How is that going to alleviate or change things? It ain't. What they need is action now, and there should be a co-design process which talks to the people in this country who have been working in this space for many years. Aboriginal organisations and their peak organisations, their representative bodies, need to be involved and consulted, and they have not been. Why not? Is it the arrogance of this government? We need to do this, and we need to do it now.

Labor is committed to getting rid of CDP and replacing it with a real jobs creation and economic program for remote Australia, developed in partnership with local communities and organisations as I've described. I might just go back a moment. My observation and experience of the old CDEP program was that it generated its own economy, it created real opportunities and it provided the capacity for additional staffing to go into places like schools and health services. Sadly, when the CDEP was abolished, the positions that they were undertaking in those schools as additional staffing, not within formula, were taken away. Their jobs were gone. So not only did those jobs go but it meant that the schools lost the important contribution that was being made by language speakers, parents, in those school communities. That is directly what happened.

Of course, we had people say, 'But these are jobs that should have been paid for by government.' They weren't within the formula. They weren't part of the staffing profile of the school. They were additional, as they were in some local government areas, doing what might have been additional local government jobs. Somehow or other, what we've done is say, 'Well, they're jobs that should be paid for by local government, by Education or by Health, and therefore what we'll do is abolish CDEP, because they're not real jobs.' What an absurdity! At the same time, we know that they were generating business opportunities. I know of a number of communities where large CDEP organisations ran small businesses such as shops and the like.

Labor will end the CDP and put in place a remote employment program to create jobs and economic growth in remote areas. I say to the government: it's not too late to change, but you need to do it now. Aboriginal people want this in remote parts of this country, including in the member for O'Connor's communities.

Pat Conaghan (Cowper, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is certainly well-established that gainful employment has more positive effects on an individual and their communities than simply financial gain, and it is perhaps second only to a meaningful relationship. Work is the most important determinant of quality of life. There is no doubt about that. Gainful employment has positive impacts on not only identity but also social interactions, a sense of purpose and a sense of feeling a part of the community. Unfortunately, it is also a well-established fact that remote communities face a unique and complex challenge to gain employment. I note the contribution of the last speaker, the member for Lingiari, and his wealth of experience. However, I must say that, regardless of whether you are for this bill or you are wanting amendments, I do not know of one member in this place who would suggest that Indigenous people do not want gainful employment. Certainly that is not the case in my community of Cowper.

As a direct result of remote communities' smaller populations, there are fewer businesses and fewer potential employers there. While working remotely is expanding the field for white-collar workers, particularly since COVID, being located away from larger job markets clearly means less opportunity for the majority of the remote Australian labour force. The fact is that less than two per cent of Australian businesses are located in remote areas; and due to cultural, family or financial reasons many people are unable to relocate to areas with more work opportunities. That being said, it is also true that many people in remote areas possess the ability, the skills and the experience needed to obtain long-term employment but, as a result of those difficulties faced, remain underemployed or unemployed.

The federal government recognised this with the Community Development Program, or CDP, which was introduced in June 2015 to specifically support jobseekers in remote Australia to build skills, address barriers to employment and contribute to their communities through a range of flexible activities. Since its inception, approximately 40,000 Australians across 60 remote regions and over 1,000 communities have participated in the program, with some CDP communities having fewer than 20 residents. In October 2017, when the program had been running for just over two years, it was noted that over 80 per cent of jobseekers within the program identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders, and 65 per cent of eventual CDP providers were Indigenous organisations.

Over the last six years, the CDP has provided meaningful insights into the true needs of remote communities and, conversely, the challenges that face programs such as this. Programs like the CDP are necessary and commendable, and they need the ability to adapt and evolve—and that is what this bill is doing; it is doing that through consultation and learning—into something that provides the ultimate value to the communities they are designed to assist. In recognition of this, some adaptations have already been made as part of the recent 2021-22 budget. Firstly, as a result of direct community feedback and consultation, the mutual obligation requirements were modified to make CDP activities voluntary for participants, removing the penalties they previously faced. It was also announced that the Remote Engagement Program, or REP, would be introduced to ensure that employment services fit the changing job market in remote Australia and meet the unique needs of jobseekers in those communities.

One thing that we should recognise and act on immediately—it is something that I raised in this place last week, and I have filed a private member's motion—is that 243,000 Indigenous people do not have a birth certificate. The birth certificate gives us our identity. Without a birth certificate, it's difficult to enter into education, to get a bank account, to get a driver 's licence. And, if we think about that number—243,000 without an identity—and there are just over 800,000 Indigenous people in Australia, that is over a quarter of Indigenous people in Australia who don't have a birth certificate. So, whilst we have programs such as this, there is a desperate requirement, a desperate need, to address the shocking fact that Indigenous people face the challenge of being unable to get a job because they don't have a birth certificate. So, as the federal government, we need to call on all the states and territories to implement programs that address that problem, because, without addressing that problem, we can't address programs such as the CDP or get Indigenous people into gainful employment.

The National Indigenous Australians Agency has a number of bills before parliament for progressing during the sitting period, this being the first. This bill will amend the social security portfolio legislation to specifically support the commencement of these critical REP pilots and sites across remote Australia. This bill sets out to create a new supplementary payment, to be called the Remote Engagement Program payment, of between $100 and $190 per fortnight. This payment will be made to eligible jobseekers in the Remote Engagement Program pilot sites who volunteer to participate in a specific placement such as with government services or available community organisations.

This bill will also establish the high-level qualifying criteria for the payment, that participation in the REP is voluntary and that a person can opt to leave a program placement. It will also enable the minister to make legislative instruments relating to the program's qualification criteria and program payment.

These placements will develop a participant's skill and confidence and provide a tangible pathway for jobseekers to find gainful employment. Importantly the proposed pilots of the program introduced by this bill will be co-designed with remote communities, and this is fundamental. It is absolutely fundamental that it is co-designed. The government has outlined and is committed to to take the time to work together and listen to the communities in the pilot sites about what they think could work in their community in relation to the amount of payment to be provided. I do agree with the last speaker that it has to be community led; it has to be led on the ground. We should not be telling individual communities what they should be doing and how they should be doing it.

On that note, in Cowper, in particular in Kempsey, I'm extremely pleased with the 'safer people, safer places' program that is being rolled out now. The way it's being rolled out is with a government hands-off approach, allowing that community to determine what the structure looks like, because, for decades—and being a Kempsey boy I know—programs have been implemented in the Macleay Valley and the Kempsey community that were government driven, and they have not been successful. So the secret here, as with this bill, is it is co-designed with the communities, and, in terms of the 'safer people, safer places' program, I look forward as I know there will be results in the Kempsey community.

This bill also better allows for adjustments during the pilots as lessons are learnt. That's so important as well. There's no point having a rigid structure when you learn something that isn't working but you cannot deviate from it or implement the better systems that are out there. Ryan Bulman is the group manager of economic policy and programs at the National Indigenous Australians Agency. He noted: 'If parliament passes this bill it will be a unique framework for co-design groups to put in place arrangements for the regions to test and trial, only up until 2024, into the social security system. I don't think we've ever had that, as far as I can recall, in our history.' That quote solidifies that fact about the co-design being community driven, community led. This is the only way that we as a government and we as a community and we as a nation can close that gap. Without it being done from the ground up, we will never achieve those goals.

In conclusion, this bill seeks to achieve the first step towards building the best possible program to assist those in remote communities to find gainful employment. It seeks to achieve a meaningful collaboration between government and affected communities through close consultation and adaptation and, importantly, it is the first of several bills progressing during these sittings. I commend the bill to the House.

Ged Kearney (Cooper, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the second reading amendment moved by my friend and colleague the honourable member for Barton, a proud First Nations woman, the first Aboriginal woman elected to the House of Representatives, who is very steeped in her community and very well connected to our First Nations peoples. This amendment asks the House to note the government's role as the architect of the failed CDP. It asks the House to note that the pilots proposed in this bill don't solve many of the fundamental issues that we know exist in this program. They are admitting, upfront, that this bill is not fixing the failures of the CDP.

The government position is that the CDP is the key to transitioning people in remote Australia into the workforce. Yet we know this is nothing more than a Work for the Dole scheme dressed up with a different name. It does nothing to create jobs. It does nothing to develop the economies of the communities that it affects. It does nothing to embed lifelong skills that ensure lifelong employment. It ignores the entrenchment of workers' rights in this country and all the benefits of a decent job that are lost to this program—like superannuation, paid leave, sick leave and decent pay that actually pays for the everyday needs of life. And it fails the test when it comes to self-determination.

This second reading amendment goes to the core of how this government engages with First Nations peoples. They enter communities with programs created without adequate consultation, that have not been co-designed with leaders and locals, and they act surprised when the programs fail, when they lead to perverse outcomes and do more harm than good. These are the issues with the CDP as it stands. Yet the exact same issues will be identified, we're sure, with the pilot schemes proposed by this bill. We make it clear that Labor is not looking to block the bill before us today. We know that it will, for a handful of participants, mean an increase to the paltry payments they get for doing the program, and those increases will be for the life of the pilot. Who could refuse those people that? We need an end to the exploitative system that is the CDP. Also, the increase in payments don't extend to participants of the existing program; it's limited to the participants of the pilot, which we know number around 200 people, and it's only for the next two years.

It's a strange half admission by this government. They admit that the CDP is a failed program, that it doesn't work, that it's deeply flawed, and they admit that we need a new program for jobs and skills development in remote Australia and they admit that under their existing scheme—which as I said, is effectively a work for the dole scheme—participants are not being paid enough. But, rather than take measures that we know could make this scheme right, right now—like raising the payments of the 40,000 people who are currently registered under the CDP—they are going to lock in those low payments for those people not in the pilot for another two years. The people in the program will work under the exact same conditions we know participants are struggling under for two more long years—all in the name of trialling alternatives.

It is a good thing that there will be an attempt to have a jobs and skills program—it's something those of us on this side of the chamber have been calling for for years now—but there is little more in this bill than half measures. The bill describes participants as being engaged in work-like activities. But we know that they won't be offered the protections and conditions of other workers. And the member for Lingiari very clearly laid out the problems there like leave, proper entitlements and superannuation. They are not protected by occupational health and safety laws and we know they won't be given traineeships or apprenticeships and will have absolutely no guarantee of a real job at the end of the two years.

There's no certainty and no security for participants baked into this bill, and the government, extraordinarily, are telling remote Indigenous communities to just trust them—'Oh, trust us on this.' How can they say that, after they have failed them for so many years, after they have failed to properly consult and when they have no real process for co-design for the alternatives to the CDP? They've shown no insight into the human rights implications of these pilots or this bill. We know that serious questions have been raised about the CDP around its implications for human rights. One could ask: where was the consultation with the Human Rights Commission?

The member for Lingiari laid out some of the issues. It doesn't pay the minimum wage; it pays way below. People on this program are far more likely to receive severe penalties, and these are monetary penalties—and we know that the monetary penalties are driving people to despair and to abject poverty. It is demotivating. It sends them backwards. They say they have no money for food for their families. We know that people on these programs are more likely to receive penalties than people on any of the other government work programs. There are reports that people have been forced to steal food for their families. Are we driving people to crime? One participant reported to the ABC, when a program was done on this, that it's 'like being a slave; it drags you down and it makes you feel terrible'. What sort of government makes its own citizens feel like slaves and feel terrible? What sort of program wants to drive people down into the ground? What sort of government wants to do that? With this bill, there is no guarantee of consultation or co-design and there's no guarantee that it doesn't impede human rights.

Why should the government be trusted by anyone to get it right this time? This bill was a test. It was a test for the government. They could have got it right. They could have gone from the very beginning, 'We can see the problems and we know how to fix them and we've got enough time to do it.' But, again, they didn't do it. They just kicked all the problems down the road for another two years. They could have done so much more. Our First Nations people and their communities deserve so much more from their government. The purpose of any jobs and skills program in remote communities must be to empower them, to boost their economies and to create capacity, and such programs must be delivered within a frame that doesn't abrogate human rights.

Llew O'Brien (Wide Bay, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.