Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Senator Scullion. It relates to reports today that unemployed Aboriginal people in remote communities will be subjected to harsher employment participation requirements and work-for-the-dole requirements. My question is: will sanctions and mutual obligations on unemployed Aboriginal people in remote areas be different to sanctions and obligations on other unemployed Australians? If so, what are the differences and what will the sanctions be?

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am aware of the reports this morning, Senator, in the media. What I can say is that we are working to ensure that people of working age who are able to work are working, and preferably for a wage. Getting people into work, as you would be aware, is one of this government's top priorities in Indigenous affairs, along with getting children to school and ensuring that communities are safe.

We need to ensure that job seekers in remote Australia are work ready and able to secure jobs. I will just touch on the fundamental element, which was: would we be treating Aboriginal people differently from any other Australian? Certainly we have not made decisions with regard to all of this, but on that particular point, no.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a supplementary question. If you are not going to be treating Aboriginal people differently, does that mean you are going to be increasing the sanctions placed on all unemployed Australians? Are you going to be increasing the mutual obligations on all unemployed Australians, and are you going to be increasing the work-for-the-dole requirements beyond what has already been included in the release of the new employment participation process?

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All of those questions go to matters that are being actively considered by the government at this stage. The government will be making some announcements in regard to all of those questions in the future.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a final supplementary question for the minister, following up on an issue with respect to the RJCP process. The difference between the employment outcomes for 13 weeks and 26 weeks is substantial. Has the minister looked into the reasons for that difference?

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When we assumed office most people recognised, I suspect, that it was for reasons of the speed under which the previous government attempted to implement RJCP. In some cases there was less than a week to implement the entire contract, get staff and get cars. It was very difficult to do that, and I think they had some 277 26-week outcomes for their investment.

We have significantly improved that; there is no doubt about that. There is no doubt that to achieve a 13-week outcome is, one would think, a lot easier to achieve than a 26-week outcome, but fundamentally the system failed to engage for 26 weeks because it simply was not a system that had the capacity to engage for that period of time. The system has been more focused on doing interviews then delivering outcomes.