The economic and social impacts of the CDEP scheme in remote Australia.

Altman, Jon ; Gray, Matthew

1. Introduction

While there is a general concern about the high level of economic disadvantage experienced by Indigenous Australians, there is an emphasis in public policy, and in debates about public policy, on remote Indigenous communities. According to conventional economic and social indicators, the disparity between Indigenous people living in remote areas and both Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians living in non-remote areas is growing (ABS 2004a, 2004b). There is evidence that some discrete Indigenous communities in remote Australia are in economic and social crisis.

The number of Indigenous people living in remote areas of Australia is substantial. According to data from the 2001 Census and the Community Housing and Infrastructure Needs Survey there are 120,000 Indigenous people, about 26 per cent of the total Indigenous population of 460,000, living in L200 discrete communities in remote regions. While only around one-quarter of Indigenous people live in remote areas of Australia, this is much higher than for the Australian population as a whole, of whom only 3 per cent live in these areas.

There are features of these remote indigenous communities that make them fundamentally different from other Australian, and many international, economic development contexts. First, these communities are in sparsely populated regions of Australia that are extremely distant, both geographically and culturally, from markets. Second, many are located on land that is owned by Indigenous people. The forms of land ownership are different: land is inalienable and held under various land rights and native title legal regimes. Third, these regions were colonised relatively late, with some parts of Arnhem Land and central Australia as recently as during the last 50 years. This has meant that customary (kin-based) systems and practices are robust and there is ongoing contestation between mainstream Australian and Indigenous worldviews. The very different economic context is perhaps most starkly illustrated by the fact that the Indigenous population in these areas have a non-CDEP employment (hereafter termed 'mainstream employment') rate of just 20 per cent and receipt of income support payments is correspondingly high.

One of the most important programs in remote areas for Indigenous community and economic development is the Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) scheme. CDEP employs around 36,000 Indigenous Australians and accounts for over one-quarter of total Indigenous employment and 63 per cent of Indigenous employment in remote areas. Almost 60,000 people participate in the scheme each year. The fact that the number of participants over a twelve-month period is approaching double the point in time number of places highlights the relatively high rate of movement through the scheme.

The CDEP scheme was first introduced in May 1977 in a small number of remote Aboriginal communities in response to concerns that the introduction of unemployment payments would result in social problems. The scheme proved immediately popular, which led to concerted pressure for expansion to other Aboriginal communities. The scheme was initially established in remote areas and while it has expanded into regional and urban areas it remains the case that the majority, of participants are in remote areas (73 per cent). Unless otherwise stated the figures used in this article are drawn from the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Survey (NATSISS) conducted in August 2002.

The scheme has undergone a number of expansionary phases, but remains fundamentally unchanged. Funding is allocated to CDEP organisations for wages for participants at a level similar to or a little higher than income support payments, enhanced with administrative and capital support. CDEP organizations provide employment, training, activity, enterprise support, or income support to Indigenous participants. (1) The scheme currently aims to achieve two broad outcomes: building and maintaining a strong, functional, and sustainable socio-cultural and economic base for individuals and communities; and increasing individual access to, and participation in, the mainstream labour market.

In remote Australia the CDEP scheme performs five main roles. First, it provides flexible employment opportunities, often in contexts where there are no, or limited, mainstream employment opportunities, particularly for Indigenous people. Second, it provides income security, and the opportunity to earn additional income from employment and enterprise as well as imputed income from participation in customary (non-market) work. Third, it provides opportunity for education and training. Fourth, it can assist participants to move into mainstream (unsubsidised) employment. Fifth, and most innovatively, it acts as an instrument for economic and community development.

Despite the significance of the CDEP scheme, in recent times, research on its social impact has been severely restricted by data limitations. Often discussions of the scheme dismiss it as an 'Aboriginal work for the dole scheme' which does nothing to improve the well-being of Indigenous Australians. In the 2002 Dr Charles Perkins Memorial Lecture, Langton (2002) argued that CDEP was 'the principal poverty, trap for Indigenous families and communities and that it was a form of "legal apartheid" when it was introduced in the 1970s and has since entrenched passive welfare'. In a recent paper on development issues in remote Australia, Hughes and Warin (2005: 15) write 'CDEP "sit down money'" is a barrier to the creation of real employment opportunities'. The former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Peter Howson, in a paper discussing reasons for continuing Indigenous economic disadvantage similarly dismisses CDEP as 'sit-down' money (Howson 2004).

Rowse (2002) provides a sophisticated examination of some tensions within the scheme. In particular he notes that in many contexts the scheme operates as a 'substitution funding' mechanism that allows poorly resourced public services in indigenous communities to be propped up with CDEP-funded labour. The scheme has also facilitated cost shifting from State governments to the federally-funded scheme. Rowse (2002: 65-72) highlights the difficulties in measuring outcomes from the scheme owing to its multiple objectives: not only is there a tension between the employment and community development (social) goals of the scheme, but it also has the capacity, to have political outcomes thought its capacity to sustain robust Indigenous organizations.

However, the position of the Commonwealth department responsible for administering the CDEP program since 2004, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR), is that the scheme is successful. The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations Minister released a Discussion Paper in February 2005 entitled 'Building on Success' which outlines possible changes to the scheme. The DEWR report expresses the view that 'The CDEP Programme has become an important part of many Indigenous communities over the last 28 years. We need to build on this success and ensure that CDEP meets the needs of Indigenous people in 2005 and into the future' (DEWR 2005: iii). Although the DEWR CDEP Discussion paper does recognize the multiple objectives of the CDEP scheme, it places a heavy emphasis on the labour market functions of the scheme and pays relatively little attention to its other roles.

This article focuses on the CDEP scheme in remote areas. Our aim is to present new evidence on the impact of the CDEP scheme on economic and social outcomes for Indigenous people in these areas. There has been little research using large-scale data sets on the CDEP scheme in these areas. The lack of research is a consequence of a lack of data on CDEE Those surveys that are capable of producing statistics have not included reliable information on CDEP employment in remote and very, remote areas. The 2001 Census allows for statistics to be produced for remote and very remote Australia, but employment on the CDEP scheme is not reliably identified. The release by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) of the National Aboriginal and Tortes Strait Islander Social Survey (NATSISS) 2002 provides for the first time more reliable data on the CDEP scheme in remote and very remote areas of Australia. In this article a range of economic and social outcomes of CDEP participants and those in other labour force states (mainstream employed, unemployed and NILF) are compared. However, using the NATSISS 2002 survey it is not possible to identify.' the causal impacts of the CDEP scheme and so some caution is needed in interpreting the results.

Except in our discussion of tables, we use the term 'remote' in a non-technical sense to refer to all those regions that are technically classified in the Australian Standard Geographic System as either 'remote' or 'very remote'. We distinguish 'remote' from 'very remote' in our tables in order to give the reader a finer-grained understanding of the differences among those regions of Australia that are 'remote'. Examples of remote areas include Alice Springs, Mount Isa and Esperance. Very remote areas represent much of central and western Australia and includes towns such as Tennant Creek, Longreach and Coober Pedy, as well as most discrete Indigenous communities located on the Indigenous estate, Indigenous-owned land.

The statistics presented in this article clearly' show that remote and very remote areas together are quite different, both in terms of the economic environment and the characteristics of the Indigenous population. This is consistent with a large body of ethnographic and anthropological research that has long highlighted the structural differences between the Indigenous population in remote areas and the Indigenous population living in non-remote Australia.

Our central argument is that data from the NATSISS 2002 support the view that Indigenous participants can both raise their income above what they would were they 'unemployed' while allowing them to continue certain unpaid activities that are widely understood to be socially beneficial. It provides a form of Indigenous employment and income support in regions that are often very distant from mainstream labour markets to participants that frequently have very different aspirations, and very, different life chances, from other Australians.

The remainder of this article is structured as follows. In the second section the labour force status of Indigenous people in different areas of Australia is described. The third section presents evidence on the effects of the scheme on the income of CDEP participants and the extent to which participants are working more than short part-time hours. In the fourth section participation in the customary economy and cultural activities is analysed. In the final section the evidence on the social and community development impacts of the program are briefly summarised.

2. Indigenous labour force status in remote and very remote Australia

In this section the labour force status of Indigenous people in remote and very remote areas are described. The labour force status in other areas of Australia (major cities, inner regional and outer regional) are also discussed in order to provide a comparative perspective of labour force status and the role of the CDEP scheme across Australia.

The importance of the CDEP scheme varies from region to region. In remote areas in 2002 16.9 per cent of the working age population was employed in the CDEP scheme (Table 1). In very remote areas 42.2 per cent were employed in the scheme. In contrast, in major cities just 3.7 per cent of the Indigenous working-age population was employed in the scheme. In inner and outer regional areas, the proportions working in the scheme were 4.6 per cent and 6.1 per cent respectively. Thus the CDEP scheme is much more significant in areas in which there are fewer or no mainstream employment opportunities. In major cities, 46.8 per cent of the Indigenous working-age population is in mainstream employment; in remote areas the proportion is 31.7 per cent, and in very, remote areas a very low 14.9 per cent.

In very remote regions CDEP accounts for nearly three-quarters of Indigenous employment and in remote areas it accounts for 35 per cent of total employment. Given the low level of market demand for the labour of most Indigenous people in remote and very remote areas it is likely that very few CDEP participants would move mainstream employment in the absence of the CDEP scheme. In other words the 'crowding out effect' of mainstream employment by the CDEP scheme is small. Assuming that the CDEP scheme has no crowding out effects, then in the absence of the scheme the official unemployment rate of Indigenous Australians in remote areas would increase from 17.2 per cent to 34.1 per cent and in very, remote areas from 7.0 per cent to 49.2 per cent.

The labour force status of non-Indigenous people living in remote and very, remote areas of Australia is very, different than in other areas of Australia. In remote areas the non-Indigenous employment rate (for the population 15 years plus) was 66 per cent and the unemployment rate was 6 per cent. In very, remote areas the non-Indigenous employment rate was 73 per cent and the unemployment rate 5 per cent. These employment rates are much higher than for the non-Indigenous population in major cities where the employment rate is 58 per cent and the unemployment rate 9 per cent. (Employment and unemployment rates for the non-Indigenous population are from the 1996 Census.) These figures highlight that in very remote areas, and to a lesser degree remote areas, non-Indigenous people are primarily residing in the area for employment.

3. Income and working hours

In remote areas the CDEP employed have a gross weekly average income of $271. Although this is much lower than the average income of mainstream employed of $587, it is substantially higher than the weekly average income of the Indigenous unemployed ($168) and those not in the labour force (S 190). The average income of Indigenous people in very remote areas is similar to the average for those living in remote areas. The main difference is that in very, remote areas the income of those not in the labour force is higher than it is remote areas ($213 and $190 respectively). This difference is probably explained by the larger average number of children in very, remote areas and consequently greater amount of Family Tax Benefits payments received.

These findings reflect the relatively liberal rules and procedures of CDEE First, CDEP organisations have the ability to develop enterprises and win contracts using the CDEP workforce and on-cost funding, thereby generating additional income which can be used to increase participants hours and provide 'top up' wages. Second, CDEP organisations may receive funding, primarily from government, to offer traineeships or apprenticeships to participants, especially where Structured Training and Employment Project (STEP) funding is available. Traineeships and apprenticeships often involve full-time employment (with combined funding from STEP and CDEP) and consequently a higher income. Third, the income test applied to CDEP participants is more generous than that applied to income support payments and does not have the disincentive effect of the taper. Fourth, CDEP participants are sometimes placed with third party employers, who can top up their wages.

Although the notional CDEP wages component only provides for part-time work (16-24 hours), a significant proportion of CDEP participants' usual working hours are long part-time hours (25 to 34 hours per week) or even full-time hours. In remote areas, 10.8 per cent are working 25 to 34 hours and 20.3 per cent are working full time. In very remote areas 9.6 per cent are working 25 to 34 hours and 18.0 per cent are working full-time (Table 3). The scheme clearly generates activity.

4. Participation in the customary economy and cultural activities

The tangible outputs of CDEP workers add directly to community development, but may also enhance individual wellbeing over and above the pecuniary benefits from increased income. Being unemployed is often associated with higher rates of police harassment and arrest, low levels of social capital and civic engagement; and high levels of drinking related offences (Hunter and Taylor 2002). Furthermore, the social costs of unemployment appear to spill over onto other members of a household. The CDEP employed sometimes fared better and sometimes worse than the unemployed on a range of indicators, but as expected the CDEP employed generally fare worse than the mainstream employed. The similarity between CDEP and unemployment may be overstated as the long-term unemployed have substantially worse social outcomes than do the CDEP employed (Hunter 2002). Many CDEP participants would be long-term unemployed if they were not participating in the scheme.

It is often argued that employment in the CDEP scheme is attractive to Indigenous people as it allows a combination of participation in customary (non-market) activities and the paid labour market. The NATSISS 2002 survey reveals that the CDEP employed are more likely to have participated in such activities than are the mainstream employed (Table 4). For example, in remote areas, 28.2 per cent of the CDEP employed had attended funerals, ceremonies or festivals (that is, participated in cultural activities) in the previous three months, whereas only 5.5 per cent of the mainstream employed reported attending these kinds of events. A much higher proportion of the CDEP and mainstream employed attended funerals, ceremonies or festivals in very. remote areas than in remote areas, but in both types of area the CDEP employed were still substantially more likely to have attended these kinds of events.

The CDEP employed are also much more likely than the unemployed to have been fishing or hunting in a group. The NATSISS 2002 question only asked about fishing or hunting which occurred in a group and hence the statistics do not include fishing or hunting done as an individual activity. In reality fishing and hunting is often an individual activity (Altman 1987) and thus the NATSISS 2002 figures provide an underestimate of the prevalence of these activities.

Of course, it may also be the case that those who are more motivated and active are both more likely to participate in the CDEP scheme and to undertake customary (non-market) activities. However, the fact that the CDEP employed are more likely than the mainstream employed to participate in these activities supports the hypothesis that participation in the CDEP scheme provides the time and workplace flexibility to undertake the customary activities to which many Indigenous people aspire. (2)

However, using existing data sources it is not easy (or perhaps even possible) to distinguish between the hypotheses that the kinds of people who take up CDEP employment are those who are particularly active in customary activities to begin with and the explanation that employment in the CDEP scheme increases participation in customary, activities.

Some commentators have highlighted that one of the important beneficial social impacts of the CDEP scheme has been the resourcing of over 200 organisations to represent Indigenous participants in a variety of forums, concerning such matters as representing land interests, development interests, and employment and training issues (see Rowse (2002: 72-75) and several chapters in Morphy and Sanders (2004)).

Beyond the NATSISS data there is growing evidence (e.g. Airman 2003; Altman and Whitehead 2003; NLC 2004) that Indigenous participation in the customary sector and in natural and cultural resource management on the Indigenous estate is generating considerable benefits for the nation and internationally in biodiversity conservation, fire abatement and in control of exotic (introduced) weeds and pests. In some situations, Indigenous CDEP participants are also participating in biosecurity, coastal surveillance, and land and sea management activities (NLC 2004). This all suggests that there are additional positive externalities for Indigenous communities, regions and the nation from the scheme that are not captured by NATSISS 2002 data, that are often unrecognized, and that are consequently undervalued and under-resourced.

This natural resource management (NRM) is supported by the CDEP scheme in two ways. First, a number of CDEP organizations in remote areas, are involved with 'caring for country' and other NRM activities. Second, the scheme allows participants in remote areas to choose between the level of engagement they undertake in the formal labour market and the effort they invest in NRM.

There have been a number of case studies using both quantitative and qualitative techniques of CDEP organisations in different areas of Australia and at different times. Almost all of these studies have come to the conclusion that the program has positive effects on the wellbeing of individual participants' and on community, development (see Altman et al. (2005) for a discussion of evidence). Government reports and government-commissioned consultancy reviews of the scheme have also invariably concluded the scheme has positive social impacts (Deloitte, Touche and Tohmastu (1993), Office of Evaluation and Audit (1997) and Spicer (1997)). We can therefore confidently conclude that the scheme has positive effects on individual, family and community, wellbeing.

5. Concluding comments

Many assessments of the current development trajectory for Indigenous communities in remote Australia are pessimistic. Government policies of the last 30 years have allowed a combination of citizenship entitlement (as an emerging right for Indigenous Australians) and self-determination to facilitate life-style choice. However, this has not delivered measurable improvements in economic and social indicators for remote Indigenous people and communities as compared to those living in other regions of Australia. There is however evidence that at the national level most social indicators (including those measuring employment, income, education and housing status) show that there has been steady, although not spectacular improvement in outcomes between 1971 and 2001 (Altman et al. 2004). This finding is somewhat at odds with the emerging public narrative of the 'failure' of Indigenous policy.

While some indicators will exaggerate the event of disadvantage in remote areas because they take no account of customary, activities such as hunting and fishing, rates of economic and social disadvantage remain high. Indigenous people mainly choose to live in remote areas for non-market reasons--because of continuing links with country. While it is sometimes argued that Indigenous residents of such communities should migrate elsewhere to engage with the market economy, it is highly doubtful that they would be able to effectively compete for mainstream employment.

We contend that policy should enhance investment in what is working. The CDEP scheme has been operating for 28 years and is a proven means of providing workfare in remote areas with limited mainstream opportunities for Indigenous Australians. It remains an important, flexible and innovative program. The evidence presented in this article shows that CDEP participants in remote regions have higher average incomes than the unemployed and those not in the labour force. There have been a number of case studies of CDEP organisations in different areas of Australia at different times. Almost all of these studies have identified positive effects on individual participants' wellbeing and on community development. A number of government reviews have also concluded that the scheme has positive social outcomes.

A key conclusion that can be drawn from the data presented in this article is that the CDEP employed are more likely to participate in customary (non-market) activities than are the mainstream employed. The NATSISS 2002 data provides the first official statistical and broadly based opportunity to compare participation in customary- activities in remote and very remote areas.

Noel Pearson, a prominent Indigenous commentator, who has argued that the CDEP scheme has enjoyed mixed success, with some communities running very successful CDEP programs, while other programs are not easily distinguishable from the dole. It is interesting that Pearson appears to argue that the CDEP scheme meets his principle of reciprocity and is therefore outside of what he terms the 'passive welfare paradigm' (Pearson 2000). The CDEP scheme is a mutual obligation type program and so fits well with the current approach to work force participation and the recommendations of the most recent review of the Australian social security, system (McClure 2000).

The policy aim to have Indigenous people in remote areas employed in mainstream jobs is not new and has been expressed by successive policy reviews since the early 1970s (e.g. Miller 1985). However, since the identification of the need to create an economic base in remote areas, no government has been successful in directly generating anything but a tiny fraction of the mainstream jobs needed. While there may be some potential for the government to increase the number of mainstream jobs filled by Indigenous people in remote areas, it is simply impossible for enough unsubsidised mainstream jobs to be generated in the short to medium term. In this context the CDEP scheme has been very, successful in generating positive economic and community development outcomes at minimal cost to the Commonwealth budget--Australian tax payers.

We are grateful to Will Sanders, Bill Fogarty and two anonymous referees for comments on an earlier version of this article and to the Chifley Research Foundation for financing access to purpose designed cross-tabulations from the National Aboriginal and Tortes Strait Islander Social Survey 2002.

References

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) 2003. Annual Report 2002-2003, Canberra, Commonwealth of Australia.

Altman, J.C. (1987) Hunter-Gatherers Today: An Aboriginal Economy in North Australia, Canberra, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.

Altman, J.C. (2003) 'People on country, healthy landscapes and sustainable Indigenous economic futures: The Arnhem Land case', The Drawing Board: An Australian Review of Public Affairs, 4(2), 65-82.

Altman, J.C., Biddle, N. & Hunter, B.H. (2004) 'Indigenous socioeconomic change 1971-2001: A historical perspective' CAEPR Discussion Paper No. 266, Canberra, CAEPR, ANU.

Airman, J.C., Buchanan, G. & Biddle, N. (2005) 'The real "real" economy in remote and very. remote Australia', paper presented at the Indigenous Socioeconomic Outcomes: Assessing the Recent Evidence conference, Canberra, 11-12 August 2005.

Altman, J.C., Gray, M. & Levitus, R. (2005) 'Policy issues for the Community Development Employment Projects scheme in rural and remote Australia', CAEPR Discussion Paper No. 271, Canberra, CAEPR, ANU.

Altman, J.C. & Whitehead, P.J. (2003) 'Caring for country and sustainable Indigenous development: Opportunities, constraints and innovation', CAEPR Working Paper No. 20, Canberra, CAEPR, ANU.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2004a) Australian Social Trends 2004, cat. no. 4102.0, Canberra, ABS.

ABS (2004b) National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey 2002, cat. no. 4714.0, Canberra, ABS.

Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (1993) No Reverse Gear: A National Review of the Community Development Employment Projects Scheme, Report to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, Canberra, ATSIC.

Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) (2005) Building on Success: CDEP Discussion Paper 2005, Canberra, DEWR.

Hughes, H. and Warin, J. (2005) 'A New Deal for Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders in Remote Communities', Issue Analysis 54, Sydney, Centre for Independent Studies.

Hunter, B.H. (2002) 'Some inter-relationships between the CDEP scheme and Indigenous labour supply', CAEPR Working Paper No. 14, Canberra, CAEPR, ANU.

Hunter, B.H. and Taylor, J. (2002) 'An overview of the costs of Indigenous unemployment' in P. Saunders and R. Taylor (eds), Price of Prosperity, Sydney, UNSW Press.

Howard, J. (2000) 'Perspectives on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Issues', Speech to the Menzies Lecture Series, 13 December, Sydney. <available from www.pm.gov.au> [accessed 4 April 2005]

Howson, P. (2004) 'No more sit-down money', Quadrant, 48(11), 19-25.

Langton, M. (2002) Dr Charles Perkins Memorial Oration, Sydney, University of Sydney.

McClure, P. (2000) Participation Support for a More Equitable Society, Canberra, Final Report of the Reference Group on Welfare Reform.

Miller, M. (Chair) (1985) The Report of the Committee of Review of Aboriginal Employment and Training Programs, Canberra, Australian Government Publishing Service.

Morphy, F. & Sanders, W. (eds.) (2004) The Indigenous Welfare Economy and the CDEP Scheme, CAEPR Research Monograph No. 20, Canberra, ANU E Press.

Northern Land Council (NLC) (2004) Environmental Management Status Reports for Aboriginal Lands in the Northern Land Council Region, Darwin, NLC.

Office of Evaluation and Audit (1997) Evaluation of the Community Development Employment Projects Program: Final Report, Canberra, ATSIC.

Pearson, N. (2000) Our Right to Take Responsibility, Noel Pearson and Associates, Cairns.

Rowse, T. (2002) Indigenous Futures: Choice and Development for Aboriginal and Islander Australia, UNSW Press, Sydney.

Spicer, I. (1997) Independent Review of the Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) Scheme, Canberra, Commonwealth of Australia.

Endnotes

(1). Approximately 76% of the $570 million 2004/05 budget allocation for the scheme was expenditure that would otherwise be incurred in the form of social security payments (ATSIC 1203). In 2004/05, on a per participant basis, the expenditure was $14,595, of which $11,092 was offset against social security payments and $3,803 was the extent of additional expenditure per participant.

(2.) For more detail on these issues see a recent analysis using NATSISS 2002 data of participation in the customary sector and in cultural activities and the role played by the (DEP scheme in facilitating such engagements by Altman, Buchanan and Biddle (2005).

Professor Jon Attman is Director of the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research (CAEPR) at the Australian National University and Dr Matthew Gray is Deputy Director, Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS). At the time of writing Matthew Gray was a Research Fellow at CAEPR. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and may not reflect those of AIFS.

Table 1. Indigenous labour force status by region, 2002

 Region

 Major
Labour force status cities Inner Outer
 per cent regional regional

CDEP employment 3.7 4.6 6.1
Mainstream employment 46.8 39.0 35.3
Unemployment rate 25.2 30.0 29.1
Unemployment rate (CDEP
counted as unemployed) 30.7 37.4 39.6
Total in the labour force 67.5 62.3 58.4
Population (No.) 83,300 52,900 60,100

 Very Total
Labour force status Remote remote Australia

CDEP employment 16.9 42.2 12.7
Mainstream employment 31.7 14.9 35.5
Unemployment rate 17.2 7.0 23.0
Unemployment rate (CDEP
counted as unemployed) 46.0 75.7 43.3
Total in the labour force 58.7 61.6 62.6
Population (No.) 23,100 49,850 269,250

Note: Table population is Indigenous persons aged 15-64 years.
Source: NATSISS 2002.

Table 2. Average gross personal weekly
income ($) by labour force status,
remote and very remote areas 2002

 Remote Very
Employed remote

CDEP $271 $276
Mainstream $587 $581
Unemployed $168 $167
Not in the labour force $190 $213
Total $283 $344

Note: Table population is Indigenous
persons aged 15-64 years.

Source: NATSISS 2002.

Table 3. Usual weekly work hours
of CDEP participants, remote and
very areas (%), 2002

Usual work Remote Very
hours per remote
 cent

1-16 15.6 10.4
16-24 53.3 61.4
25-34 10.8 9.6
35+ 20.3 18.0
Population (no.) 3,900 21,100

Note: Table population is Indigenous
CDEP participants aged 15-64 years.

Source: NATSISS 2002.

Table 4. Cultural and social activities in the last three months,
remote and very remote areas, 2002

 Remote Very
 Remote
 %
 Recreational or cultural
 group activities

Employed
CDEP 33.3 64.9
Mainstream 21.9 54.1
Unemployed 21.7 36.4
Not in the Labour Force 20.8 57.8

 Community or special
 interest group activities
Employed
CDEP 25.6 38.4
Mainstream 20.5 41.9
Unemployed 13.0 27.3
Not in the Labour Force 11.5 27.6

 Funerals, ceremonies
 or festivals
Employed
CDEP 28.2 65.9
Mainstream 5.5 41.9
Unemployed 13.0 50.0
Not in the Labour Force 20.8 69.8

 Fishing or hunting
 in a group
Employed
CDEP 35.9 76.8
Mainstream 4.1 47.3
Unemployed 8.7 50.0
Not in the Labour Force 17.7 70.3

Notes: Table population is indigenous persons aged 15-64 years.
Although fishing or hunting is included in this table it is
as much an economic as cultural or social activity.

Source: NATSISS 2002.