Indigenous Employment - The Road to 'Real' Jobs

This page started as a good news story about the Australian Employment Covenant. And the AEC is still a good news story. Andrew Forrest is to be admired for his attempt to employ indigenous people. But the success of such initiatives is never clear cut......

The first article comes from The Australian and paints a very positive picture.


Engaged in the real economy

From: The Australian
April 13, 2012 12:00AM


AFTER decades of economic separatism, welfare dependency and despair, increasing numbers of Aborigines in remote Australia are playing an important role in the nation's most productive industry - mining.

We congratulate Western Australian mining magnate Andrew Forrest for helping place more than 55,000 Aborigines in jobs since 2008 when he launched the Australian Employment Covenant. Since then he has employed hundreds of Aborigines in his Fortescue Metals Group, where they total about 10 per cent of the workforce. Mr Forrest's lateral thinking and practical leadership have succeeded where many other programs, however well meaning, failed to draw Aborigines from the margins into the mainstream economy.

As indigenous lawyer Noel Pearson said at the outset of the covenant, for every 10 jobs a hundred flowers would bloom in the lives of indigenous children: "We're going to look back on this ... as that moment in the history of the country when government and society made a commitment to people that if you take up the cudgels of responsibility we will guarantee you a job, we will set forth before you a prospect of climbing up in the world - a home, a future for your children, a fair stake in this, your own land."

That vision is beginning to become a reality, as indigenous workers and their families swap Centrelink payments for the generous salaries available in mining and save for their own homes and futures. The transformation, individual by individual, family by family, promises long-term success because it is devoid of all vestiges of welfare and handouts. As Aborigines step up to take responsibility for themselves as they discover job satisfaction and pursue financial security, governments must continue facilitating the trend by improving health, education and housing services.

Unlike previous employment initiatives that have been motivated by paternalism, the trend to employ remote Aborigines in mining is being driven by a more hard-headed motive - the push by mining companies to secure a comparative advantage in a sector where workers are scarce. Kevin McLean, general manager of FMG's Cloudbreak iron ore mine in the Pilbara summed up the reality when he said companies were "screaming out for labour" so "if you can tap into people who already have housing, you are a step ahead." It's a win-win process.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The True Numbers
For every indigenous jobs initiative it must be possible to measure the results. Surely we can establish how many indigenous applicants there are, how many people are employed and how long they are retained for. And then it should be a matter of looking at which employers are most successful.

Twiggy Forrest of the AEC claims to have placed 10501 indigenous job-seekers and of these 71% were still employed after 6 months. He compares that to the government Job Services program that has a 45% retention rate after only 3 months.

The government then claim that 7043 people have been employed and only 30% of these were retained.

How hard can it be to establish the true figures ?

Forrest claims the government isnt providing the training that they promised. He's already upset the government by protesting against the mining tax. Let's hope politics aren't getting in the way of evaluating or supporting the AEC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More jobs at the Ayers Rock Resort
Another good news story. The next question  is - what is the retention rate ? Let's hope these are long term.

Mainstream or Customised?

If there’s one never-ending debate in indigenous affairs it must be the choice between ‘mainstream’ or ‘customised’ delivery of services to indigenous people. Put simply, mainstreaming says that 1 set of rules is applied to everyone. The same benefits, the same laws, the same responsibilities. 

The proponents of this approach argue that disadvantaged communities or groups ultimately suffer by having a distinct set of rules applied to them. The latest offering is from John Watson from The Age 

An example of a customised solution might be the CDEP scheme that employs indigenous people in remote communities to clean up the streets. Given the lack of employment opportunities the theory is that it’s better to require welfare recipients to perform some service in return for a wage, rather than simply handing out the dole with no return obligation.

Mainstream theory would suggest that the ‘clean-up’ jobs are really only ‘pretend’ jobs that would not exist in mainstream society. Possibly in mainstream they would be performed by offenders operating under community orders. The theory is that by creating such ‘pretend’ jobs you are entrenching inequality as the worker is performing a role that does not develop skills in the mainstream marketplace.  So abolish the role and apply the same standards that apply to ‘everyone else’. Mainstream policies really imply you need to ‘shape up or ship out’ – to whitefellah standards and culture.

But these issues are never so simple. Current Centrelink rules may require a job-seeker to attend 10 job interviews within a fortnight in order to qualify for the dole. How would that restriction work in a remote community where there may be 50 jobs for 700 people?

Mainstreaming also implies that the same facilities and services are to be available to all. Is the government going to build hospitals, schools, child care centres, police and fire stations in every remote community? 

Most feedback from indigenous communities favours local solutions. Customised solutions that are a result of listening to the local elders and implemented in response to local needs are usually more successful. They empower the community to be involved and to take responsibility. The Mt Theo program, http://www.mttheo.org/home/mt-theo/the-mt-theo-story/ that ended petrol sniffing at Yuendumu is a good example.

Watson makes the point that the overall cost of existing programs is significant. Is it possible that we owe indigenous Australia the cost and effort involved in developing localised solutions across the country? Rio Tinto are doing it  when they factor in sorry business into indigenous employment arrangements. No mainstreaming there. But they are displaying a lot of respect for indigenous culture.

Epilogue :  Read about Twiggy Forrerst from the Australian Employment Covenant. Are these 'real' jobs ? It may be that the 60,000 are only 'pledges' but you cant argue with 10,501 off welfare benefits. This is amazing and holds lessons for all employers and government if it's true.