Introduction

1.1 In August 2023 the unemployment rate in remote regions of Australia was 5.1 per cent³ compared to the national average of 3.7 per cent⁴, and the youth (15–24 years old) unemployment rate was 10.1 per cent⁵ compared to the national average of 8.2 per cent.⁶ In 2018–19, the unemployment rate was higher for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in remote areas compared to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in non-remote areas.⁷

1.2 To address the longstanding issue of remote unemployment, the Remote Jobs and Communities Program (RJCP) was introduced in July 2013. The RJCP replaced four existing programs then operating in remote areas: Job Services Australia; Disability Employment Services; the Indigenous Employment Program; and the Community Development Employment Projects program. In December 2015, the Minister for Indigenous Affairs stated: ‘ … the evidence shows that further reforms to the income support system is required for remote communities to drive the behavioural changes needed to get people active, off welfare and into work’.⁸ The RJCP was replaced by the Community Development Program (CDP) in July 2015.

The Community Development Program

1.3 Between 2017–18 and 2022–23, $1.9 billion was expended on grants to CDP employment services providers⁹, and an additional $60.2 million was provided to employers as incentive payments (see Table 1.1 and paragraph 1.8).

Table 1.1: Community Development Program caseload and expenditure

Note a: Includes pending, commenced and suspended job seekers.

Note b: Excludes expenditure on the 1,000 Jobs Program.

Source: National Indigenous Australians Agency.

1.4 The CDP operates across 75 per cent of Australian territory, in over 1,000 communities (Figure 1.1).

Figure 1.1: CDP regions, August 2023

Source: National Indigenous Australians Agency.

1.5 Participation in the CDP is not exclusive to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people; however, the majority of CDP employment service providers and participants are Indigenous. As at 30 June 2023, there were approximately 41,000 participants (of which approximately 86 per cent identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander), supported by 47 organisations contracted by the Australian Government to deliver the program (of which 79 per cent were majority-owned by Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders).

1.6 When it was introduced in 2015, the intent of the CDP was to respond to the problem of welfare reliance by assisting people in remote regions to ‘gain the skills, experience and commitment necessary to find paid work where it exists’ and ‘[enable] them to contribute meaningfully to their community in the absence of paid work, through participation in continuous CDP activities’.¹⁰ In January 2024, the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) described the aim of the CDP as to support job seekers in remote Australia to build skills, address barriers to employment and contribute to their communities through activities and training.¹¹

1.7 The CDP contributes to several Closing the Gap targets¹²:

• target 7 — by 2031, increase the proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander youth (15–24 years) who are in employment, education or training to 67 per cent; and
• target 8 — by 2031, increase the proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people aged 25–64 years who are employed to 62 per cent.¹³

1.8 Key elements of the CDP include: job placement services and activities provided by contracted employment service providers; financial incentives for employers and employment service providers to place participants in employment; and participants’ mutual obligation requirements for income support.

• Job placement services and activities — Eligible jobseekers in CDP regions register through Services Australia to receive support from contracted CDP providers. Support can include: vocational and non-vocational training; work-for-the-dole¹⁴ and other work-like activities designed to increase skills and experience; involvement in activities that support cultural practices; essential skills training and assistance to overcome personal barriers to employment; job search assistance; work experience placements; support for job seekers and employers when a job seeker gains employment; and mentoring.
• Financial incentives to employers and providers — In addition to CDP provider payments, providers receive financial incentives for achievement of a 13 or 26-week employment outcome for each participant. Employer incentive funding is provided after achievement of a 26-week outcome.
• Mutual obligation requirements — Mutual obligation requirements are designed to ensure that unemployed people receiving participation payments are actively looking for work and are participating in activities that will help them into employment.¹⁵ For CDP participants, until May 2021 mutual obligation requirements included: going to appointments with their employment services provider; agreeing to or changing a job plan; actively looking for work; going to job interviews; accepting suitable job offers; only leaving work with a valid reason; participating in work-for-the-dole activities; and participating in training and work experience.

Reform and replacement of the Community Development Program

1.9 A 2017 Senate inquiry into the CDP concluded that the CDP should not continue in its current form due to negative impacts on participants and their communities.¹⁶ Since the 2017 Senate inquiry, the Australian Government has signalled its intent to fundamentally reform or replace the CDP through various announcements and measures.

• 2017 — The 2017 Senate Inquiry report indicated that it had received a submission by the Minister for Indigenous Affairs ‘on the directions he proposes to take in transitioning to a new model for the program’.¹⁷
• 2018 — Reforms to the CDP were announced in the 2018–19 Budget, including more flexible participation arrangements, a reduction in participation hours, a revised provider payment model and community advisory boards.¹⁸ The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Community Development Program) Bill 2018¹⁹ included the introduction of the Targeted Compliance Framework²⁰ to CDP regions among other reforms. The bill provided that CDP participants would be subject to the same welfare compliance framework²¹ as non-remote welfare recipients.
• 2019 — Administrative changes were made to the CDP including reducing the number of hours certain participants had to spend on work-for-the-dole activities.
• May 2021 — The Australian Government decided to make participation in CDP activities voluntary, thus reducing mutual obligation requirements.²²
• November 2021 — The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement Program) Bill 2021 passed on 29 November 2021, providing a framework for piloting new approaches to delivering employment services in remote communities.²³ The explanatory memorandum stated that a new program would replace the CDP by 2023.²⁴
• August 2022 — The Australian Government announced that the CDP would be replaced by a new remote employment program that would provide ‘real jobs, proper wages and decent conditions’.²⁵
• February 2024 — The Australian Government announced a new ‘Remote Jobs and Economic Development Program’, which would commence in the second half of 2024 and fund 3,000 jobs over three years.²⁶

1.10 In 2019, a group from the Ngaanyatjarra Lands filed a class action lawsuit against the Commonwealth of Australia for allegedly breaching the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Racial Discrimination Act) through CDP work-for-the-dole requirements.²⁷ A settlement was reached in September 2021, which was accepted by the Federal Court in December 2021. Under the settlement, the Commonwealth agreed to provide a $2 million grant to the community and pilot a remote employment program in the Ngaanyatjarra Lands.

1.11 Reform of the CDP is happening in the context of broader reforms to employment services. In November 2023, the Select Committee on Workforce Australia Employment Services tabled the report Rebuilding Employment Services. The report made 75 recommendations, including that a new Commonwealth employment services system be developed and implemented.²⁸ Although the scope of the report was on Workforce Australia²⁹, the committee made one recommendation to review the boundaries of CDP regions.³⁰ Recommendation 53 included there should be coherence and integration between disparate incentive programs, although the report considered that the CDP should remain a separate program.³¹ The report also concluded that the approach to mutual obligations should be harmonised between mainstream services and the CDP.³²

The National Indigenous Australians Agency

1.12 The Order to Establish the National Indigenous Australians Agency as an Executive Agency (29 May 2019) specifies that the functions of the NIAA include to:

• lead and coordinate Commonwealth policy development, program design and implementation and service delivery for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people;
• build and maintain effective partnerships with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, state and territory governments and other relevant stakeholders to inform whole-of-government priorities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait people, and enable policies, programs and services to be tailored to the unique needs of communities;
• design, consult on and coordinate the delivery of community development employment projects; and
• analyse and monitor the effectiveness of programs and services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, including programs and services delivered by bodies other than the NIAA.

1.13 The NIAA is responsible for the overall design and administration of the CDP³³, administering grant agreements with CDP providers and monitoring provider performance.³⁴

1.14 The Indigenous Advancement Strategy (IAS) is the mechanism through which the Australian Government funds and delivers a range of programs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The NIAA states that it targets IAS investment to align with Closing the Gap outcomes and priority reforms.³⁵ The IAS has six programs: 1.1 Jobs, Land and Economy; 1.2 Children and Schooling; 1.3 Safety and Wellbeing; 1.4 Culture and Capability; 1.5 Remote Australia Strategies; and 1.6 Research and Evaluation. The CDP is included under Program 1.1.

1.15 Some aspects of the CDP are administered by other Australian Government entities, comprising Services Australia (administration of income support payments to CDP participants; and data on jobseeker eligibility, employment status and income support); and Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) (CDP IT systems; and data on CDP caseload and employment outcomes). DEWR is responsible for jobseeker policies including mutual obligations. The Department of Social Services is responsible for income support policies.

Rationale for undertaking the audit

1.16 Remote employment programs aim to assist people in thin labour markets to secure employment. Since 2015 the CDP has been the primary Australian Government remote employment program. The CDP covers 75 per cent of Australia’s land mass in over 1,000 communities. In 2022–23, $384.6 million was expended on CDP payments. As at June 2023, there were approximately 41,000 people participating in the CDP, of whom approximately 86 per cent identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.

1.17 Since 2017, successive Australian Governments have stated an intention to fundamentally reform or replace the CDP.

1.18 This audit provides the Australian Parliament with assurance on whether the NIAA has been effectively managing the transition from the CDP to a new remote employment program, including its processes to design a new program.

Audit approach

Audit objective, criteria and scope

1.19 The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the NIAA’s processes to design and transition to a new remote employment program.

1.20 To form a conclusion against the objective, the following high-level criteria were adopted:

• Did the NIAA effectively manage the transition period from the CDP to a new remote employment program?
• Did the NIAA effectively implement remote employment program trials to inform the new remote employment program?
• Were the NIAA’s processes to design a new remote employment program fit for purpose?

Audit methodology

1.21 The audit methodology included:

• an examination of NIAA records and emails between Australian Government officials;
• observation of NIAA governance meetings;
• meetings with NIAA staff, CDP providers (in the Northern Territory, South Australia and Western Australia) and other CDP stakeholders comprising a local shire, a land council, business owners, community members and CDP participants;
• site visits to four locations in CDP regions in the Northern Territory (Alice Springs, Ntaria (Hermannsburg), Ltyente Apurte (Santa Teresa) and Darwin); four locations in CDP regions in Queensland (Cooktown, Kuranda, Hopevale, and Wujal Wujal); and Cairns; and
• five submissions to the audit through the ANAO’s citizen contribution facility.

1.22 The audit was conducted in accordance with ANAO Auditing Standards at a cost to the ANAO of approximately $845,700.

1.23 The team members for this audit were Tony Varnes, Dr Ashley Stephens, Alicia Vaughan, Eliza Glascott, Benjamin Foreman and Christine Chalmers.

2.1 Between 2017 and 2023, there was one parliamentary inquiry into the CDP, and two parliamentary inquires which made recommendations regarding the CDP.

• 2017 — Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee, Appropriateness and effectiveness of the objectives, design, implementation and evaluation of the Community Development Program (CDP) (the 2017 Inquiry)³⁶;
• 2021 — House of Representatives Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, Indigenous Participation in Employment and Business (the 2021 Inquiry)³⁷; and
• 2023 — Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Community Safety, Support Services and Job Opportunities in the Northern Territory (the 2023 Inquiry).³⁸

2.2 Commonwealth government entities support the Australian Government by preparing advice on parliamentary committee recommendations. Where the Australian Government agrees to action in response to a parliamentary committee recommendation, entities are responsible for setting clear responsibilities and timeframes for delivering the agreed action. The appropriate and timely implementation of agreed recommendations is an important part of realising the full benefit of a parliamentary inquiry and for demonstrating accountability to the Parliament. In August 2019, the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) wrote to departmental secretaries to reinforce the requirement to monitor any recommendations made by parliamentary committees and agreed to by government.

2.3 Between 2017 and January 2024, the contractual arrangements with CDP employment service providers were extended to bridge the transition period to a new program. PM&C and the NIAA were responsible for advising the Australian Government on a new remote employment program and developing an appropriate evidence base to inform this advice.

Was there an appropriate response to parliamentary committee recommendations?

2.4 The November 2022 NIAA Audit and Risk Committee charter states that the committee’s role is to provide independent advice and assistance to the NIAA Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and Executive on the appropriateness of the NIAA’s system of internal control, including in relation to relevant parliamentary committee reports. This involves providing advice to the CEO about the implementation of agreed actions.

2.5 Prior to December 2023, the NIAA did not have policies, guidance or procedures for how to respond to and monitor parliamentary committee recommendations. In December 2023, the NIAA Executive Board noted a proposed process for monitoring recommendations of parliamentary committees in the same way as Auditor-General and internal audit recommendations are monitored.

The 2017 Inquiry

2.6 Of 22 recommendations made by the 2017 Inquiry, four were ‘agreed’ by the government, 14 were ‘noted’ and four were ‘not supported’ in November 2018.³⁹ The government made a range of commitments in its response, including in relation to recommendations that were noted or not supported. For example, in response to recommendation six⁴⁰, which was ‘noted’, the government stated that ‘On 14 December 2017, the Minister for Indigenous Affairs … announced the commencement of a formal consultation on a new employment and participation model’.

2.7 Neither PM&C nor the NIAA developed an implementation plan for the committed actions or a plan for the transition period from the CDP to a new remote employment program. Despite no overarching plan, between December 2017 and June 2019, PM&C undertook activities to respond to the 2017 Inquiry’s recommendations.

• In December 2017, PM&C assessed each of the report’s recommendations and identified how each recommendation could be addressed through changes to the CDP, or through the development of a new model. On 14 December 2017, PM&C released a discussion paper seeking stakeholder input to options for how to respond to issues raised in the 2017 Inquiry and other reviews.
• In February 2018, PM&C sought advice from the Australian Government Solicitor (AGS) regarding legal issues arising from aspects of a proposed model.
• In August 2018, revisions to the CDP were proposed that drew on analysis of feedback to the 2017 discussion paper. The government introduced the Social Security Legislation (Community Development Program) Bill 2018 (see paragraph 1.9). The bill lapsed in July 2019, at the end of the 45th Parliament.

2.8 Both prior and subsequent to the 2017 Inquiry, PM&C commissioned or conducted research into and evaluation of the CDP, the reports for which were published in accordance with the Indigenous Advancement Strategy Evaluation Framework, which is also publicly available.⁴¹

2.9 In August 2020, as part of a process to prepare for a potential ANAO audit of Implementation of the Community Development Program (CDP) Reforms⁴², the NIAA documented the implementation status of the 2017 Inquiry recommendations, as well as recommendations from Auditor-General Report No. 14 2017–18 The Design and Implementation of the Community Development Program. In October 2020, the NIAA Policy and Delivery Committee (see paragraph 4.11) assessed the implementation status of the agreed recommendations as well as commitments relating to recommendations that were not agreed to.⁴³

2.10 The NIAA assessed that, of the 22 2017 Inquiry recommendations: 13 required no further action; five were underway with no additional action required; and four required additional follow up (‘underway and not on track’ or ‘not commenced’).

• Completed / no further action required — The 13 recommendations requiring no further action were supported by advice that the completed actions had achieved the intent of the recommendation. In eight instances, the ANAO assessed that the decision to close was appropriate. However, five recommendations were put into this category despite the proposed action being incomplete or the underlying risk not being fully resolved (see, for example, Box 1).
• Underway / no further action required — Of the five recommendations in this category, the ANAO examined the two recommendations that were agreed to (recommendation 10 and recommendation 15) (see Appendix 3, which lists the four 2017 Inquiry recommendations agreed to by government and the ANAO’s assessment of their implementation as at December 2023). Neither recommendation was implemented.
• Requiring follow-up — The four recommendations assessed as not on track and requiring follow-up were: recommendation 6 (‘noted’ by government)⁴⁴; recommendation 8 (‘agreed’, see Appendix 3); recommendation 9 (‘not supported’)⁴⁵; and recommendation 21 (‘agreed’, see Appendix 3).

2.11 Since 2020 there has been no further evaluation of the implementation status of the 2017 Senate Inquiry recommendations, including the four 2017 Inquiry recommendations that were assessed in 2020 to be not on track. The NIAA Policy and Delivery Committee was disbanded in November 2022. The NIAA advised the ANAO that the governance body that now monitors the implementation of parliamentary recommendations is the Executive Board (see paragraph 4.11), and that the Audit and Risk Committee provides assurance on the process. There is no evidence that the NIAA Executive Board or the PM&C and NIAA audit and risk committees have had visibility of the recommendations and their implementation progress.

2.12 In May 2021, the NIAA prepared the 2019 CDP Reform Program Closure Report (Closure Report), which recorded the development, implementation and management of reforms made to the CDP in 2019. The Closure Report did not refer to the 2017 Senate Inquiry recommendations.

The 2021 and 2023 inquiries

2.13 The August 2021 Inquiry report was focused on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander business and employment policy.⁴⁶ In relation to employment policy, the report concluded that there were ongoing barriers to sustainable employment pathways for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, that this was particularly true in remote areas, and that there was a data shortfall to help assess successful transitions into education, training and employment. The 2021 Inquiry included six recommendations which related to the CDP or its replacement program. In March 2022, the government ‘noted’ three of the recommendations (related to co-design, the use of police records and data); and ‘supported in principle’ the other three (related to training, mentoring and transport).

2.14 The 2023 Inquiry report⁴⁷, which related to the Northern Territory, included a chapter on job opportunities and CDP reform. The 2023 Inquiry report stated that it had heard multiple stakeholders describe the CDP as needing fundamental reform, which the government was progressing. The 2023 Inquiry made one CDP reform-related recommendation, which was that providers undertake community consultation to identify areas of possible employment in their region and tailor participants’ work and training opportunities towards filling those future jobs, and that a mechanism is provided for participants to learn from and gain exposure to successful Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in business (recommendation 6).⁴⁸ Recommendation 6 was ‘supported’ by the Australian Government.

2.15 Although there is monitoring of CDP reforms through the NIAA’s Economic Empowerment Implementation Committee (EEIC) (see paragraph 4.11), as at January 2024 there had been no specific analysis or oversight of progress against the 2021 and 2023 inquiry recommendations, including the CDP-related recommendations.

2.16 In its response to the 2021 Inquiry, the government made a range of commitments, including about trialling approaches and co-design ahead of implementing a new program. The NIAA undertook activities related to the government’s response, including releasing a discussion paper in August 2021 that anticipated that the CDP would be replaced by a new program in 2023, following the implementation of trials in five CDP regions. The discussion paper did not refer specifically to the 2021 Inquiry and its recommendations, however the content reflected the government commitments that had been made in response to the Inquiry around training, co-design and trials (paragraph 2.13). The 2021 discussion paper included less detail on proposed options than the 2017 discussion paper (see paragraph 2.7) and no additional risks were raised. In October 2021, the NIAA engaged Inside Policy to review responses to the 2021 discussion paper, conduct interviews with CDP providers and prepare analysis to inform a new remote jobs program.

2.17 For each of the three agreed 2021 Inquiry CDP reform-related recommendations, the ANAO was unable to fully assess the implementation status of the agreed actions as the design of the new program remained a work-in-progress as at January 2024. The ANAO’s initial assessment of the implementation of the first part of the 2023 Inquiry recommendation 6 is discussed in Chapters 3 and 4 of this report.

Were risks effectively managed in the transition period?

2.20 Section 16 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act) requires that the accountable authority of a Commonwealth entity ‘establish and maintain an appropriate system of risk oversight and management for the entity’. The Commonwealth Risk Management Policy states that entities ‘must ensure that the systematic management of risk is embedded in key business processes’ and that considering risk is an integral element of overall management and must be included in policy development and program delivery.⁴⁹ Policy advice to the Australian Government must provide enough detail on risk and implementation challenges to ensure that the Australian Government can make an informed decision.⁵⁰

Community Development Program risk management

2.21 PM&C drafted a CDP risk plan in 2015. The draft risk plan outlined that the goal of the CDP was to develop ‘better functioning communities through increased participation’ and to end ‘passive welfare’. The draft plan identified five ‘moderate’ risks and one ‘minor’ risk, with proposed mitigations. The draft risk plan was not implemented or monitored. In 2018, PM&C developed (and in 2019 updated) a divisional risk register that included nine CDP-specific risks (one ‘very high’, three ‘high’, four ‘moderate’ and one ‘minor’). The ‘very high’ risk was ‘[c]orrupt, fraudulent and/or illegal activity by a contractor, grant recipient or provider’.

2.22 Following its establishment in July 2019, the NIAA became responsible for the implementation of the CDP and advising the Australian Government on CDP-related risk. The NIAA’s August 2020 stocktake in anticipation of a proposed ANAO audit (see paragraph 2.9) stated that reforms to the CDP were managed in line with the PM&C Risk Management Framework. The stocktake indicated that the NIAA would review and update risk plans for the CDP.

2.23 On 17 December 2020, the NIAA Executive Board endorsed a Risk Management Framework and Risk Management Policy for the entity as a whole, which was updated in December 2023. The 2020 Risk Management Policy outlined the accountabilities and requirements for managing risk in the NIAA, included a risk appetite and tolerance statement, and required that formal risk assessments were conducted, in addition to ongoing risk management activities. The Risk Management Framework defined three types of risk: external⁵¹; enterprise; and operational.

2.24 Enterprise risks and mitigations are identified at a high level in NIAA corporate plans; and in an ‘enterprise risk register’. Prior to February 2024, neither the corporate plans nor the enterprise risk register assessed the risks based on their likelihood and consequence, indicated whether the risks are within the NIAA’s tolerance for risk, or assigned risk owners. Auditor-General Report No. 27 2022–23 NIAA’s management of provider fraud and non-compliance made a recommendation to the NIAA to fully implement its Risk Management Policy and Framework, including by conducting assessments of enterprise risks.⁵² The NIAA updated the enterprise risk register in February 2024 to include risk ratings and risk owners.

2.25 A CDP-specific risk register had been established by the NIAA in November 2020. However, an April 2021 KPMG Australia ‘CDP Reform Health Check’ found that, while the NIAA had ‘ … identified risks and considered the implications of risk’ in relation to CDP reforms, there was no complete and up to date CDP risk register.

2.26 As at January 2024, there were two CDP risk registers: one for business-as-usual CDP and one for CDP reform.

• CDP business-as-usual risk register — The register was developed in 2021. Each risk is assessed against a risk tolerance. Proposed treatments are listed with due dates and an accountable officer. The register was updated on an approximately quarterly basis between June 2021 and December 2023.
• CDP reform risk register — In September 2023, the NIAA established the Remote Employment Taskforce (see paragraph 4.8), which (in November 2023) developed a draft risk register to capture risks specifically relating to the design of and transition to a new remote jobs program. As at 19 December 2023, the draft CDP reform risk register listed 33 risks against 12 themes. Of the 33 risks, 23 were rated ‘high’, one was rated ‘medium’ and nine were unrated. In February 2024, the NIAA advised the ANAO that the CDP reform risk register had not yet been finalised or approved.

2.27 Risk registers for the CDP were developed in the context of public and parliamentary commentary, and NIAA analysis, that the CDP was a failed program that carried legal, financial, social and reputational risks. The August 2020 stocktake had noted that ‘[s]ince the implementation of CDP, the program has received criticism that it is discriminatory, failing remote communities, racist and contributing to hunger and poverty in remote communities and contributing to an increase in crime, violence and suicide rates’. The NIAA advised the Minister for Indigenous Australians that the CDP had not been successful in achieving its objectives.

2.28 The legal risks associated with the CDP were first advised to government in 2015. The advice stated that the risk of the program being inconsistent with the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Racial Discrimination Act) was medium. From 2015, legal risk was identified by multiple external stakeholders.⁵³ In December 2016, a complaint about the CDP was brought to the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) by the Shire of Ngaanyajarraku, alleging a breach of the Racial Discrimination Act. A mediation process was initiated but failed, and in July 2019 Dawson and Ors v Commonwealth of Australia (Dawson v Cth) commenced. In December 2021, Dawson v Cth was settled by the Commonwealth for a grant of $2 million (plus GST) to the Shire and Council; the design, implementation and evaluation of the Remote Engagement Program Trial in the Shire of Ngaanyajarraku (see Table 3.1); and legal costs of $278,897.

2.29 A commitment to reform the CDP was a component of the NIAA’s negotiations and eventual settlement of Dawson v Cth. The complainants required that the CDP’s (or future programs’) mutual obligation requirements be ‘on par’ with requirements in non-remote areas. In January 2021, the government was presented with a single recommended option to meet settlement requirements and reduce the risk of future legal action: to make most CDP mutual obligation requirements voluntary (referred to as a compliance pause). In May 2021, the government announced that the CDP would be replaced by a new remote jobs program and that, with immediate effect, participation in the work-for-the-dole component of the mutual obligation requirements would be voluntary. After the removal of the requirement to attend activities in May 2021, CDP participation declined by approximately 50 per cent on average. In July 2021, Jobs Australia⁵⁴ wrote to the NIAA advising of concerns raised by its members, including that the ‘predictable’ outcomes of the changes to mutual obligation requirement had occurred, including increased domestic violence, lower school attendance, substance abuse and aggression toward frontline CDP staff.

2.30 In July 2023, the NIAA was advised that another complaint had been brought to the AHRC against the Australian Government on the same basis as Dawson v Cth.

2.31 Despite Dawson v Cth and the public discourse about legal risk, relevant legal risk was not identified in the 2018 and 2019 PM&C divisional risk registers or in the NIAA’s CDP business-as-usual and draft CDP reform risk registers.

2.32 None of the risk plans or registers for the CDP appropriately recognised or treated the known risks to the achievement of CDP objectives and of possible adverse consequences from the program. A December 2023 version of the CDP business-as-usual risk register groups 17 risks into four themes — fraud and compliance (6); service delivery (5); outcomes (4); and transition (2) — each of which are rated low (8) to medium (9). Despite the NIAA’s own assessment that the CDP was not achieving its objectives, an outcome risk that ‘project benefits [are] not realised’ is assessed as ‘possible’, with a ‘moderate’ consequence and rated ‘medium’. Despite the decline in participation after the partial removal of mutual obligations requirements in May 2021, a service delivery risk that ‘providers [are] unsuccessful in engaging job seekers in activities’ is described to be ‘possible’, of ‘minor’ consequence and rated ‘low’. Eleven of the 17 risks are ‘accepted’ with no further treatment required and six of the 17 risks have treatments specified. The decided action for the two outcome risks of ‘project benefits not realised’ and ‘payment model results in perverse outcomes’ was to ‘accept the risk’ with no further treatment required.

Shared risk management

2.33 The Commonwealth Risk Management Policy⁵⁵ requires that government entities collaborate to manage shared risks.⁵⁶ The NIAA is responsible for the overall administration of the CDP; however, other government entities administer relevant programs and legislation and are responsible for delivering some elements of the CDP (see paragraph 1.15). The NIAA 2023–24 Corporate Plan recognised shared risks as one of four risk types (the others are enterprise, operational and emerging).

2.34 The NIAA has an Administrative Arrangements document, which outlines the role of the NIAA, providers, Services Australia, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR), and the Department of Social Services in the delivery of the CDP. Although the Administrative Arrangements document states that responsibility for some policy aspects is shared, there is no discussion of how shared risks are to be managed. The NIAA also has bi-lateral agreements with DEWR and the Department of Finance Service Delivery Office (Finance SDO). The NIAA and DEWR Letter of Agreement (7 October 2021) outlines the services DEWR is required to provide to the NIAA. This primarily relates to IT systems and support and is in place until 30 June 2024. The NIAA and DEWR Letter of Agreement does not specifically address how shared risk will be managed between the two entities. The NIAA and Finance SDO agreement (11 January 2021) includes a shared risk section which states shared risk will be managed in accordance with the Commonwealth Risk Management Policy.

2.35 The CDP ‘business-as-usual’ and ‘reform’ risk registers do not explicitly refer to shared risks, however, they identify that some risks and/or treatments relate to other entities. The CDP risk registers list work with other entities as a control or proposed treatment. The NIAA does not share or collaborate regarding these risk registers with other Commonwealth entities.

2.36 There are several cross-government working groups concerned with CDP reform (see paragraphs 4.13 and 4.14). An Inter-departmental Committee’s and Select Working Group’s terms of reference do not include the identification and management of shared risk. However, a Remote Jobs IT Systems Project Group’s terms of reference include to ‘identify major risks and establish mitigating strategies to address these risks’. None of the cross-government working groups for CDP reform have developed a shared risk register. Although there is limited reference to the joint assessment and management of risks in governance arrangements for these cross-government groups, meeting minutes reflect discussion of risks.

Were provider arrangements in the transition period appropriate?

2.39 CDP employment services provider agreements in force at January 2024 commenced in 2019.⁵⁷ The 2019 agreements were originally due to cease in June 2022 but as at January 2024 had been extended twice.⁵⁸

• In May 2021, an extension option to June 2023 was exercised by the Minister for Indigenous Australians. The extension was meant to align with the commencement of a new remote employment program that had been announced in 2021.
• In November 2022, following the Australian Government’s commitment to replace CDP with a ‘New Jobs Program’, the minister agreed to a ‘transition’ approach that would involve the further extension of existing CDP provider contracts to October 2024. The Prime Minister agreed to this in December 2022, and the extensions were implemented in February 2023.

2.40 Figure 2.1 shows a timeline of the extensions to the 2019 agreements, focusing on the key decisions involved in the second (February 2023) extension of the 2019 CDP provider agreements to October 2024.⁵⁹

2.41 Paragraph 5.3 of the Commonwealth Grant Rules and Guidelines (CGRGs) provides that an entity must report information on individual grants on GrantConnect⁶⁰, including grant variations where those variations involve additional payments of relevant money or significant extensions.⁶¹ The NIAA appropriately reported the May 2021 and February 2023 extensions on GrantConnect.

Figure 2.1: Extensions of 2019 Community Development Program provider grant agreements, as at January 2024

Note a: In May 2024, the NIAA extended CDP provider agreements to June 2025.

Source: ANAO analysis.

Consideration of extension options and risks

2.42 On 29 August 2022, the minister agreed to the NIAA’s recommendation to reallocate up to 25 per cent of CDP provider payments to voluntarily trial new approaches to ‘real jobs’ that moved away from a mutual obligation focus, with the NIAA describing this as a ‘fast and low risk first step to reforming CDP’. In its advice to the minister, the NIAA provided one option and highlighted one risk: that CDP providers will not take up the opportunity due to the limited time available.

2.43 A briefing to the NIAA’s Economic Empowerment Implementation Committee (EEIC) (see paragraph 4.11) on 4 November 2022 stated that three options were considered by the CDP Branch⁶² to transition from the ‘current state’ (existing CDP arrangements with a ‘steadily decreasing pattern of attendance’) to the ‘desired future state’ (a new remote employment program). Option 1 was ‘do nothing’, Option 2 was ‘cessation of the program’ and Option 3 was ‘changes to the CDP’. Option 3 involved trialling different approaches to remote employment using a different provider funding mechanism (CDP Trial Phase 1, see Table 3.1) until June 2023, ‘with a possible extension’. The benefits, costs and risks of each option were presented to the EEIC.

2.44 Option 3 was recommended by the CDP Branch because:

• it offered significant benefits to the NIAA and job seekers and allowed CDP providers to trial ‘pathways to real jobs’;
• the risks were rated as low to moderate, while the risks of Options 1 and 2 were rated as high, and included high financial and reputational risks with serious consequences;
• in particular, Option 2 (cessation) ‘would likely result in long term negative consequences for communities, community organisations and job seekers, and furthermore does not align with NIAA’s vision to be a reliable and trusted partner’;
• even if all the Option 3 risks were realised, it had more benefits than the other two options; and
• the option had already been endorsed by the minister on 29 August 2022.

2.45 The 4 November 2022 EEIC papers included a request to the EEIC to approve continued work on a project plan for the CDP Trial Phase 1, a copy of which was attached. The project plan timeframe was 1 November 2022 to June 2023, noting the possibility of an extension of the CDP Trial Phase 1 beyond that date. The project plan set out 13 ‘low’ and four ‘medium’ risks associated with the trial. One of the medium-rated risks was ‘inability to deliver project in timeframe’, with one of four potential treatments being to prioritise approaches that could be trialled quickly. The EEIC papers included that Option 3 had ‘formed the basis of a ministerial submission’ to the minister in August 2022, which the minister had approved.

2.46 On 18 November 2022, the NIAA sought agreement from the minister to enter a CDP ‘transition approach’ that included extension of existing CDP provider agreements to 31 October 2024. The minister was advised that the extension to 31 October 2024 would ‘allow time for you to bring forward a new program proposal, informed by consultation, for Government consideration as well as time to run a [provider] selection process for the new program and an IT system build’. The NIAA outlined one specific risk: that CDP providers could be critical of their funding being reduced to support the trial. The ministerial brief stated generally that the risks were ‘low’, that the NIAA would manage these risks and that it would provide an update on risk management. In providing approval for the CDP provider extension on 24 November 2022, the minister indicated concern that some existing CDP providers were less than ideal, and requested further advice around providers. The minister also requested for contracts to be kept flexible, so they could be varied or ended at any time if needed. On 9 December 2022, the Prime Minister wrote to the Minister for Indigenous Australians agreeing to the request to ‘extend CDP provider contract agreements’ and ‘extend the New Jobs Program Trial’. On 7 January 2023, the Group Manager of the Economic Empowerment Group approved the proposed approach for implementing the CDP provider extensions.

2.47 Existing provider under-performance, and the potential impacts on CDP participants or the achievement of program objectives, were not raised as a risk by the NIAA to the minister. As at January 2024, advice about providers and an update on risk management requested by the minister on 24 November 2022 had not been provided.

2.48 In advising the minister, the NIAA did not recommend testing the market or considering alternative providers. The NIAA advised the ANAO in November 2023 that the option of testing the market was considered ‘at a high level’, but was not progressed due to short time frames. February 2023 advice to the Deputy CEO (the delegate for provider extension decisions) also indicated that a competitive selection process was ruled out of consideration because it was too late to undertake such a process before provider agreements were due to end on 30 June 2023, and because there were few organisations that would be ready with the expertise and capacity to deliver CDP services in remote Australia within the required timeframe. However, the advice stated that ‘a competitive selection process to re-test the market [was] planned to commence in December 2023’. In February 2024, the NIAA advised the ANAO that ‘there was no intention to re-test the market for CDP providers, as CDP was scheduled to end on 31 October 2024 and has agreements in place until this time’, and that the NIAA could ‘not commence drafting a Grant Opportunity Guideline or procurement documentation without at least some high-level decisions being made by Government about a new remote employment service.’

Implementation of provider extensions

Provider assessments and recommendations for extension

2.49 To determine which provider agreements were suitable for extension, the CDP Branch conducted a review of providers in November to December 2022. The Group Manager of the Economic Empowerment Group was advised that the review was considering ‘the original CDP grant opportunity criteria of need, quality, efficiency and effectiveness’, including the level of First Nations ownership and control of the provider, whether providers were local to the region, and whether providers were able to deliver services to the communities in the region. The advice also stated that the CDP Branch was working closely with the Program Fraud and Compliance Branch, the CDP Performance and Assurance Section and NIAA regional offices to consider past performance.

2.50 The provider review examined for the 64 existing CDP provider agreements⁶³: provider performance review (PPR) results (see paragraph 2.73) for the prior three reporting periods; the average PPR result across those three periods; an organisational risk profile⁶⁴; whether the provider was majority Indigenous-owned; caseload; any sensitivities or issues; and treatments for any sensitivities or performance issues.

2.51 An ‘indicative’ or ‘initial’ summary of the review was provided to the Group Manager in January 2023. The conclusion of the ‘indicative’ or ‘initial’ review was that 63 out of 64 provider agreements should be extended. One provider agreement was not recommended for extension due to performance and contractual issues. Table 2.1 shows, for the performance review period prior to extension, the number of provider agreements that the Group Manager was advised scored above and below requirements according to NIAA calculations. When averaged across three reporting periods, of 63 provider agreements, the Group Manager was advised that 31 were rated ‘below requirements’ (that is, had an average three-month PPR score of less than 75 per cent).⁶⁵

Table 2.1: Provider performance review ratings for agreements recommended for extension, as provided to Group Manager in January 2023

Note a: Provider Performance Review period 11 was from October 2020 to March 2021.

Note b: Provider Performance Review period 12 was from March 2021 to September 2021.

Note c: Provider Performance Review period 13 was from October 2021 to March 2022.

Note d: To inform its January 2023 advice to the Group Manager, the NIAA calculated an average across the three reporting periods for each provider by adding the PPR11, PPR2 and PPR 13 percentage scores and dividing by three.

Source: ANAO summary of NIAA calculations and documentation.

2.52 Of the 63 provider agreements recommended for extension, one was assessed in an organisational risk profile as being ‘extreme risk’, 12 were assessed as ‘high risk’, 38 were assessed as ‘medium risk’ and 12 were assessed as ‘low risk’. The provider that was not recommended to be extended was classified as ‘extreme risk’. On 13 February 2023 the Deputy CEO (Policy and Programs) (the delegate for provider extension decisions) was asked to approve varying and extending grant agreements. A list of 63 provider agreements recommended for extension (the same as in the ‘indicative’ or ‘initial’ list) was appended.

2.53 The ‘indicative’ or ‘initial’ summary included treatments for some provider agreements. The Group Manager was told that treatments for eight of the 13 ‘extreme’ and ‘high’ risk provider agreements were: ‘remediation plan’ (one provider agreement)⁶⁶ and ‘improvement commitment plan’ (seven).⁶⁷ For four (including two with a PPR of below 50 per cent in PPR12 but a score of 75 per cent or greater in PPR13), the Group Manager was told ‘delivery meets requirements. No treatment required’.

2.54 For higher risk providers where some form of treatment was promised, treatments were partly implemented.

• Despite being a requirement of the remediation plan process, there were no monthly performance meetings from February 2023 onwards with the one high risk provider who was to have a remediation plan. The provider’s performance results showed improvement but remained below requirements (under 75 per cent) for the two PPRs following the CDP provider agreement extensions.
• The NIAA did not complete improvement commitment plans for two of the seven provider agreements where an ‘improvement commitment plan’ was listed as a treatment. The performance of the two providers decreased over the two subsequent PPR periods, with one of the providers dropping to below 50 per cent in one period.

2.55 Although the minister had indicated that there was a need to strengthen performance as part of the extension approach, the treatment plans were aligned with normal arrangements for treating non-performance first outlined in a June 2020 CDP Assurance Framework (see paragraph 2.73). In January 2023, the Group Manager was advised that the ‘NIAA is conscious that some lower performing providers have not consistently received sufficient guidance to improve their performance’, and gave the example of one small provider that had only recently entered into a remediation plan despite repeated non-performance identified in previous PPRs.

Delegate approvals

2.56 Paragraph 4.6 of the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines (CGRGs) states that, when requesting approval to award a grant, officials must provide written advice to the minister (or delegate) that must, at a minimum, include: an outline of the application and selection process, including the selection criteria that were used to select potential grant recipients; and include the merits of the proposed grant or grants relative to the grant guidelines and the key consideration of achieving value with relevant money.

2.57 In February 2023, the Deputy CEO was asked to: agree to exercise a clause in the 2019–2022 Head Agreement for the CDP to extend CDP services from 1 July 2023 to 31 October 2024 for listed organisations; and agree to commit up to $517 million from Indigenous Advancement Strategy Program 1.1 to 31 October 2024. For each provider, the recommendations included the: organisation risk profile; activity risk assessment; overall assessment against the assessment criteria; information about the applicant (such as whether they were an Indigenous organisation); key issues and risks; and how the proposal to extend represented value with relevant money. The advice to the delegate did not include a clear description of the selection criteria that were used in making the extension decisions, and the specific selection criteria are not listed in any other document.

2.58 The request noted that the extension was allowable under the CGRGs and that the Department of Finance had been consulted and was ‘comfortable with the approach’. Finance had advised the NIAA on 19 January 2023 that it ‘didn’t have any issues’ with the approach ‘given the provision included in the original agreements and policy authority for the extension of the program, noting that individual providers will be assessed on suitability for extension based on current performance and value for money.’

2.59 Individual extension recommendations for poorer performing providers were made despite being assessed as ‘partially meeting the assessment criteria’. Of the 63 recommended extensions, 57 per cent ‘fully’ met and 43 per cent ‘partially’ met the assessment criteria. The NIAA did not document the basis on which providers ‘partially’ met the assessment criteria, as selection criteria were not included. Analysis under each assessment focused on the providers’ recent PPR results and whether they were participating in the CDP Trial Phase 1. Reasons for recommending an extension of a provider agreement despite partial achievement of assessment criteria included: short time frames ‘compared with the time and cost required to select a new provider’; participation in an improvement plan; that ‘staffing challenges affecting performance would also apply to other potential providers’; and the provider is an Indigenous organisation.

2.60 Achieving value with relevant money is a core aspect of grants administration.⁶⁸ Paragraph 4.5 of the CGRGs provides that when approving a proposed commitment of relevant money, the approver must record in writing the basis for the approval relative to the grant opportunity guidelines and the key principle of achieving value with relevant money. Achieving value for money should include consideration of price and non-financial costs and benefits, such as potential supplier’s relevant experience and performance history.⁶⁹

2.61 Value for money justifications were provided for each individual grant extension recommendation. The same six value for money justifications were provided for almost all⁷⁰ 63 CDP provider extensions. Value for money justifications presented reforming the CDP as the generic rationale for extending all provider agreements (for example, ‘[it] will refocus the CDP from welfare and compliance to supporting job seekers into real remote jobs in remote Australia’), rather than presenting specific reasons as to why an individual provider’s agreement should be extended.

2.62 The delegate was told that ‘six organisations have been flagged with compliance concerns’, noting that ‘ … the Head Agreement currently contains stringent provisions to enable monitoring and management of compliance issues’. An outline of the specific compliance concerns was provided in the individual extension recommendations for four providers.

2.63 On 13 February 2023, the Deputy CEO approved all 63 extensions and asked to be provided with regular updates through existing governance structures. An update was provided in September 2023 (see paragraph 2.67).

Agreement terms and management of provider performance

2.64 February 2023 changes to the grant agreement included changes to provider payment arrangements and the removal of a requirement for providers to conduct activities with participants on a daily basis.⁷¹ The new head agreement specified the end date to be 31 October 2024, with a further 36-month extension allowed (that is, to 31 October 2027).⁷²

2.65 In the February 2023 memorandum seeking approval of the amended head agreement, the CDP Branch manager was told: ‘Providers will be required to participate in the delivery of projects that move job seekers into real jobs, and to lift their performance as part of the extension arrangements’. The 2023 provider agreement variations did not include any new clauses allowing for the agreement to be terminated early (as had been requested by the minister in November 2022, see paragraph 2.46) or to support better provider performance. Internal NIAA correspondence from February 2023 states that internal legal advice was that the 2019 head agreement was already sufficient to address the minister’s request. The NIAA was unable to locate written evidence of the internal legal advice and advised the ANAO in November 2023 that it had been verbal.

2.66 In the January 2023 ‘indicative’ or ‘initial’ list of recommended extensions, nine of 63 providers were recommended extensions subject to certain conditions.⁷³ In the final recommendations to the delegate in February 2023, conditions were recommended for four providers.⁷⁴ Although ‘indicative’ or ‘initial’ conditions related to the management of under-performance (e.g. ‘subject to conditions for improving performance’ or ‘close monitoring from regional officer’), none of the listed conditions in the final extension recommendations related specifically to managing under-performance.⁷⁵

2.67 When seeking the delegate’s approval for provider agreement extensions in February 2023, the delegate was told that there would be more rigorous application of existing performance and compliance arrangements; that ‘more intensive support, feedback and accountability’ would be implemented; and that a strategy for lifting provider performance would be developed. Steps were taken to develop and implement a strategy in 2023.

• In April 2023, the CDP Branch provided an update to the EEIC on its two-part approach to strengthening provider capability (part 1 involved targeted support for consistently underperforming providers⁷⁶; and part 2 involved ‘a rejuvenation of general measures designed to enable and support good performance across the broad cohort’).⁷⁷
• In September 2023, the CDP Branch provided an update on CDP provider capability to the Group Manager, which included a draft CDP provider capability development framework. The Group Manager agreed to the draft provider capability development framework being shared with regional managers for feedback, and for the CDP team to begin working with providers who had been identified for targeted support. An overview of the draft framework was provided to regional managers in September 2023.
• In October 2023, the NIAA reviewed four providers to understand reasons for underperformance.

2.68 A targeted support package for poorer performing providers had not been completed as at January 2024.

2024 extensions

2.69 In January 2024, the government agreed to the extension of the CDP, which included further extending and varying the CDP provider agreements. In May 2024, the NIAA delegate authorised further agreement extensions with an end date of 30 June 2025. The NIAA advised the ANAO that ‘testing the market months before broader reform would create uncertainty and disruption to providers, which could in turn have negative impacts for participants and outweigh any benefits of testing the market for this interim period’.

Was monitoring and reporting of program performance effective during the transition period?

2.72 The CDP has various objectives including to: help participants in remote parts of Australia find and remain in paid work; reduce welfare dependency in remote communities; and make positive contributions to the community.⁷⁸ The purpose of the NIAA includes to ‘analyse and monitor the effectiveness of programs and services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.’⁷⁹ The NIAA states on its website that ‘the work of the [NIAA] is underpinned by effective data and evidence.’⁸⁰ Understanding the effectiveness of the CDP is important to designing a new remote employment program.

Internal monitoring and reporting

2.73 An August 2023 version of a 2020 CDP Performance and Assurance Framework (CDP Assurance Framework) sets out the key roles and responsibilities for CDP provider compliance and performance monitoring. The Grant Design Branch in the Program Performance Delivery Group was responsible for developing the CDP Performance and Assurance Framework, managing the provider performance review (PPR) process and undertaking assurance reviews of providers’ employment outcome claims. In addition to managing CDP policy and design, risk, and the provider selection process, the CDP Branch was responsible for managing CDP data capability, including the use of CDP data and analysis to inform program management.⁸¹

2.74 The CDP Assurance Framework states that provider performance and assurance activities ‘provide insights into the operational effectiveness of the program’. There is a CDP Provider Performance Guide (first developed in May 2020 and last updated in November 2023), which sets out the procedures for PPRs. Six provider key performance indicators (KPIs) are assessed through the PPRs. Listed remediation actions for poor performance include issuing a breach notice; requiring providers to develop an ‘improvement commitment plan’ or a ‘remediation plan’; withholding of payments; and termination or reduction of a provider’s agreement. The PPR process relies on provider-reported information, site visits undertaken by NIAA officials, and assurance reviews of providers’ 13 and 26-week employment outcome claims.

2.75 Although the CDP Assurance Framework states that provider performance and assurance activities provide insights into program effectiveness, there are no overarching framework or procedures for monitoring the performance of the program as a whole. This deficiency was noted by KPMG in a ‘CDP Health Check’ (April 2021), stating that in the absence of performance monitoring, the NIAA ‘is not able to evaluate or realise benefits’ of the CDP. Version 5.0 of the CDP Assurance Framework (August 2023) states that a whole NIAA Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Framework is under development. As at January 2024, this had not been finalised. In May 2024, the NIAA advised the ANAO that the Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Framework had been ‘superseded’ by a ‘Priority Setting Framework’ which had been approved by the NIAA Executive Board in February 2023. The Priority Setting Framework states that regional or sectoral strategies must have a theory of change and a performance, monitoring and evaluation plan. The NIAA advised the ANAO in January 2024 that it did not intend to develop a CDP-specific performance monitoring and evaluation framework due to ‘the government’s commitment to replace CDP from May 2021’.

2.76 The NIAA monitors CDP data (including provider compliance and other forms of program data) through Qlik, a data visualisation tool.⁸² There are a number of key reports. The CDP Assurance Framework states that the Grant Design Branch will brief the Senior Leadership Committee (SLC) (see paragraph 4.11) following each PPR assessment to inform operational and strategy policy direction for the Indigenous Advancement Strategy. In September 2023, the SLC was provided with a paper that detailed the PPR results for two periods (from March 2022 to October 2022, and from October 2022 to March 2023). Internal reporting on CDP data and outcomes is also provided to the Economic Empowerment Implementation Committee.

2.77 There is no internal regular reporting within the NIAA which goes to whether the CDP is meeting its intended goals to place and retain job seekers in paid work beyond 26 weeks, reduce welfare dependency in rural communities, and have participants contribute positively to community. Data is available to the NIAA from Qlik, the CDP IT system and the DEWR Data Warehouse. In February 2024, the NIAA advised the ANAO that it has on occasion analysed some CDP data to understand longer term outcomes⁸³, but that this is limited by the completeness of the data, which is predominately entered by providers, and by the fact that the average length of job placements cannot be ascertained because the job placement end date is not usually recorded.

2.79 Although caseload is classified as an ‘input’ by the NIAA and not identified as an effectiveness metric, the NIAA advised the ANAO that it monitors decreases in CDP caseload as an indicator of effectiveness. Papers prepared for a ministerial working group in January 2024 stated that the caseload of jobseekers on CDP has remained relatively stable over the life of the program, ‘indicating that people on the CDP caseload are not moving into jobs’ and provided the data shown in Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2: Remote employment services caseload, July 2013 to July 2023

Source: NIAA.

External reporting

Annual performance statements

2.80 Under section 39 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act), a Commonwealth entity must publish annual performance statements in its annual report.⁸⁴ The NIAA’s portfolio budget statements, corporate plans and annual reports do not contain specific performance measures for the CDP.⁸⁵

2.81 In the 2023–24 Portfolio Budget Statements, the CDP sits under Outcome 1⁸⁶, Program 1.1 (Jobs, Land and the Economy). In 2022–23 and 2023–24, there was one performance measure for Program 1.1: ‘proportion of [Indigenous Advancement Strategy] Program 1.1 activities that are assessed by NIAA Agreement Managers as having core service delivery elements which meet or exceed requirements’ (with a target of 90 per cent). Although not mentioned in the Portfolio Budget Statements, the 2022–23 and 2023–24 NIAA corporate plans explain that the single Program 1.1 performance measure excludes CDP performance.⁸⁷

2.82 The lack of representation of CDP performance in the NIAA’s public performance reporting is not consistent with the level of public expenditure on the CDP, or the intended contribution of the CDP to achieving Closing the Gap outcomes and Priority Reforms.⁸⁸

Other public reporting

2.83 An annual CDP Regional Data Report contains information on CDP caseload and 13 and 26-week outcomes, by month and CDP region for the relevant financial year. As at January 2024 the NIAA website provides links to three reports: 2018–19, 2019–20 and 2020–21. The NIAA advised the ANAO that it intends to publish the 2021–22 and 2022–23 Regional Data Reports in early 2024 and that delays in public reporting are due to the focus on a replacement program for the CDP and because an Australian Public Service Framework for Governance of Indigenous Data (GID) had not been finalised. The NIAA is the responsible agency for the GID framework.⁸⁹

2.84 The NIAA publishes CDP participant compliance data on its website, however provider performance data as assessed through PPRs is not made publicly available. Since September 2018, a quarterly CDP Compliance Data report provides CDP participants’ compliance with mutual obligation requirements, including appointment attendance; income support payment suspensions for non-compliance; and reasons for non-attendance.⁹⁰ There is also a yearly summary of the number of CDP participants’ income support payment suspensions, short term financial penalties and nonpayment penalties by each state and territory.⁹¹ As at January 2024, the latest annual penalties and suspensions report relates to 2020–21.

2.85 Outcome 17 of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap is that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ‘people have access to information and services enabling participation in informed decision-making regarding their own lives.’⁹² Priority Reform 4 is that ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have access to, and the capability to use, locally relevant data and information to set and monitor the implementation of efforts to close the gap, their priorities and drive their own development.’⁹³ The NIAA advised the ANAO in November 2023 that:

There is no routine provision of information on CDP outcomes to community organisations, however organisations may receive this from time to time as follows: If we receive a request for information from a particular stakeholder; As part of engagement with the relevant Regional Office; A part of co-ordinated briefings/consultation processes. Additionally, community organisations can access the data published on the NIAA website; CDP providers have direct access to Qlik to review their data; NIAA is currently working through privacy assessments with the plan on increasing publicly available data on a regular cycle.

3.1 Since 2017, successive governments have stated the intention to reform or replace the CDP (see paragraph 1.9). The NIAA was responsible for designing a new jobs program. The Guide to evaluation under the Indigenous Evaluation Strategy states:

Pilots and trials can … allow policy makers to experiment and/or be innovative with policies and programs that otherwise might be too risky or expensive to put in place on a larger scale … However, pilots need to be well designed and implemented.⁹⁴

The Guide to evaluation under the Indigenous Evaluation Strategy specifically addresses the evaluation of pilots, noting that ‘By building evaluation into a pilot, lessons on implementation and impact can be used to refine or end a policy or program before it is rolled out more widely’. The government was also required to evaluate the REP Trial as part of the Dawson and Ors v Commonwealth of Australia (Dawson v Cth) settlement (see paragraph 2.28).

3.2 Approximately $200 million has been budgeted for the remote employment program trials to inform the design of a program to replace the CDP, largely within the existing CDP budget. As at January 2024, the NIAA was implementing three remote employment trials: CDP Trial⁹⁵; Remote Engagement Program (REP) Trial; and New Jobs Program Trial (NJPT). A fourth trial was planned to commence in 2024: Ngaanyatjarra Engagement and Employment (NEE) Trial. Key details of each trial are presented in Table 3.1.

Were trials effectively designed?

3.3 As a mechanism to test the effectiveness of new approaches, trials should: have a clear purpose from commencement⁹⁶; test novel approaches and support the collection of relevant data that facilitates the determination of whether the novel approaches are effective; and allow enough time for trial outcomes to be realised and evaluated.⁹⁷ Priority Reform 1 of Closing the Gap is ‘Formal Partnerships and shared decision-making’.⁹⁸ The NIAA identifies co-design as one of seven elements of its Place Based Practice Framework.⁹⁹ The ANAO also examined if the trials were informed by effective consultation and co-design.

A clear purpose

3.4 The stated purpose of all of the remote employment trials was clear. The NIAA described the trials on its website as a way for the NIAA to work in partnership with remote communities to test ‘new approaches to remote employment’ and redesign the CDP.¹⁰⁰ As shown in Table 3.2, each of the four trials was also serving other objectives. The REP and NEE Trials sought to meet a settlement condition for Dawson v Cth. As a result, there was an exclusive focus on one very remote CDP region; this limited the REP and NEE Trials’ utility in informing the design of a new program due to low participation numbers.

Table 3.2: Purpose of trials

Note a: Minister for Indigenous Australians, ‘Putting remote employment issues on the table’, media release, Parliament House, Canberra, 31 August 2022.

Note b: Explanatory Statement, Social Security (Remote Engagement Program Payment) Determination 2023 (Cth), p. 1.

Note c: Australian Government, Budget Paper No. 2: Budget October 2022-23, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 2022, p. 173. The announcement stated that the government would ‘provide $9.4 million over three years’.

Source: ANAO analysis of NIAA documentation.

Testing novel approaches and supporting the collection of relevant data

3.5 The NIAA advised the ANAO in February 2024 that the trials were developed to test approaches to deliver on the government’s commitment to ‘real jobs’ for program participants, rather than re-developing employment services. The CDP Trial, REP Trial and NJPT were all testing novel approaches (Table 3.3). However, in its design the CDP Trial did not clearly distinguish novel features from business-as-usual CDP, constraining the way in which the trial could be effectively evaluated. The NIAA committed to using lessons learned from the 1,000 Jobs Package (a wage subsidies¹⁰¹ program) in the design and delivery of the NJPT, which also involved wage subsidies, however the 1,000 Jobs Package was not formally evaluated.

Table 3.3: Trial approaches

Note a: Examples of potential projects included short-term employment through the delivery of community projects; intensified support for job readiness; and providers funding wages for jobs in local organisations for a temporary period.

Note b: A summary of approved projects as at 31 March 2023 was made available on the NIAA website. National Indigenous Australians Agency, Community Development Program (CDP): Trialling Pathways to Real Jobs [Internet], NIAA, 2023, available from https://www.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/cdp-trialling-pathways-summary-approved-trials-mar-2023.pdf [accessed 7 February 2024].

Note c: However, the approaches had been previously allowed under the head agreement.

Note d: A hosted activity was a work-for-the-dole or other activity hosted by an organisation other than a provider or subcontractor.

Note e: Under the Commonwealth Grant Rules and Guidelines, grant opportunity guidelines must be developed for all grant opportunities. Grant opportunity guidelines are the authoritative documents for potential grantees to understand the purpose of a grant and how to make an application.

Note f: The 1,000 Jobs Package was allocated up to $50.8 million over six years from 2019–20 (of which $45.9 million was committed as at September 2023) for partial wage subsidies to organisations that employed a CDP participant. The original program was extended to 30 June 2023 due to an initially slow uptake and various implementation issues. Under the 1,000 Jobs Package, employers were required to pay leave and superannuation entitlements and top up participants’ wages as required to meet the minimum wage requirements. Funding was capped at $61,058 per employer over two years. By contrast, the NJPT provides full wage subsidies to community organisations. Unlike 1,000 Jobs, NJPT grants do not have an upper limit. Funding is awarded at the minimum wage rate and includes employees’ leave and superannuation entitlements. NJPT funding is also available for relevant associated costs, such as training, supervision, consumables, acquisition of small-scale capital and hiring of vehicles, plant and equipment. NJPT does not pay in arrears and does not pay retention bonuses. NJPT involves wrap-around support activities. There are also differences in regional coverage. The 1,000 Jobs Package was available to applicants in all CDP regions, whereas the NJPT is available in 17 (of 60) CDP regions. On 1 March 2023, the minister agreed the 1,000 Jobs Package would close to new applications from 30 June 2023.

Note g: Although a draft 1,000 Jobs evaluation strategy was developed during the early stages of the program, the NIAA advised the ANAO in November 2023 that there was no plan to conduct an evaluation. During the ANAO’s consultation with relevant stakeholders for the audit, two organisations indicated that negative experiences with the 1,000 Jobs Package had influenced their decision not to apply for the NJPT.

Source: ANAO analysis of NIAA documentation.

Enough time for trial outcomes to be realised and evaluated

3.6 The Guide to evaluation under the Indigenous Evaluation Strategy states:

The methodology, timeframe and scale of any pilot or trial needs to be such that the evaluation results produced are not misleading (for example, the outcomes of some policies will only be achieved after a policy has been in place for a certain period of time, which means too short a timeframe to test for outcomes could produce misleading or false results).¹⁰²

3.7 In order for the trials to meet the objective of fully informing a new remote employment program which was to be designed in 2023 and implemented by October 2024, there needed to be sufficient time for trial activities to be implemented, administrative processes to be evaluated, outcomes to be realised and outcomes/impacts to be analysed. Trial timing is shown in Table 3.4.

3.8 The NIAA advised the ANAO in February 2024 that learnings from the administration of the trials were continually informing its design work through 2023. However, the planned timing of the trials (which were largely to conclude by October 2024) meant that trial outcomes (that is, the effectiveness of the trials in achieving the objective of creating ‘real jobs’) could not have fully informed a design process to be undertaken in 2023, and the implementation of a new jobs program from October 2024. Additional delays or extensions to original timeframes have further weakened the trials’ potential usefulness in informing a new program. The characteristics of novel approaches that could be realistically trialled through the CDP Trial were also constrained due to compressed timeframes.

Table 3.4: Timing of trials

Note a: Jobs funded under the NJPT will not operate past 30 October 2024, and all funding must be spent by that date or returned. Any expenditure beyond 30 October 2024 sits with the employer.

Source: ANAO analysis of NIAA documentation.

Informed by effective consultation and co-design

CDP Trial

3.9 The NIAA advised the minister in August 2022 that it would ‘work closely with providers to develop [CDP Trial] proposals’. Although the idea behind the CDP Trial responded to earlier feedback from providers that they had been ‘constrained by current program settings’ when ‘exploring different ways to keep job seekers engaged’, the NIAA’s consultation on the high-level characteristics of CDP Trial was limited. CDP providers were contacted on 31 August 2022 and invited to attend a teleconference on 5 September 2022. The minutes of the 5 September 2022 teleconference do not capture any provider feedback on the proposed trial design. Feedback on the payment model, funding, trial guidance and proposal template was requested within three days of the teleconference given the ‘ambitious timeframes’.

3.10 Consultation with providers on the detail of the CDP Trial was undertaken in subsequent months. This included: regional teleconferences with providers and NIAA staff; meetings with individual providers; dedicated NIAA officers in every CDP region to support providers in developing quality innovative proposals; three iterations of Frequently Asked Questions, a provider newsletter; a dedicated email inbox; NIAA representatives attending the National Employment Services Association and Jobs Australia conferences; changes to the CDP operational guidance; and engagement from NIAA regional offices. The NIAA established a Provider Reference Group to ‘support the trials and overall performance monitoring of the trial projects’, which met at least monthly from September 2022 to its final meeting on 8 June 2023. Records of the Provider Reference Group meetings show that the NIAA received and actively considered feedback and queries on CDP Trial design and implementation during these meetings. The NIAA maintained an issues register for CDP and followed up on issues.

3.11 Consultation was a component of the trial’s design. Participating providers were responsible for developing project proposals for their specific regions. The NIAA sought ‘clarification and/or further development’ from some providers before approval was granted and a number of proposals were approved with conditions, however the proposals were provider-driven.

3.12 An annexure to the grant agreement with providers required that projects ‘be developed and implemented in close consultation with community, with a focus on strengthening community led approaches’. Proposal assessment guidance stated that providers were required to demonstrate ‘clear existing community support for the project and/or an approach for engaging community throughout the period of the trial’. Although provider consultation was undertaken, effective community consultation was less evident. A ‘monitoring, evidence and learning’ report about the CDP Trial Phase 1 (see paragraph 3.31) noted that:

• providers at 10 trial sites ‘almost universally’ complained that they did not have sufficient time to develop their proposals, restricting their ability to consult with the community on the most suitable local approach, and that there was too much paperwork involved in a too short period of time;
• the trial period was expected to begin towards the end of the year when ‘delays are generally encountered in more remote locations’ and that this was ‘not well thought through’; and
• at a majority of the 10 trial sites visited, insufficient community consultation was reportedly undertaken to properly reflect community and participant needs.

3.13 The NIAA did not undertake consultation with stakeholders other than providers (for example participants, host organisations or employers) to promote participation, address implementation issues or confirm that appropriate community consultation occurred. Providers were required to inform participants about project opportunities and conditions, and engage directly with employers and other organisations. The NIAA advised the ANAO in November 2023 that ‘regional offices have regular interactions with community stakeholders as part of their usual engagement work’. However, there is no evidence of planned consultation activities about the CDP Trial through the regional network, a synthesis of regional network consultation findings, or documented link to the design or implementation of the CDP Trial and its projects.

REP Trial

3.14 A trial co-design group was formed, comprised of NCAC and NIAA representatives. Four meetings were conducted in March 2022, May 2022, February 2023 and May 2023. NCAC was asked to determine the eligibility requirements, fortnightly payment rate and hours, all of which were included in the final trial design. After limited progress in 2022 a legislative instrument was made on 7 July 2023 to stipulate the fortnightly payment rate. No co-design meetings were held with PTAC, however PTAC provided feedback on the design of the REP Trial in August 2023.

3.15 The explanatory statement for the enabling legislation indicates that the fortnightly income supplement was agreed through a co-design process with residents of the Ngaanyatjarra Lands (facilitated by the two providers) in 2023.¹⁰³ REP Trial operational guidance states that providers were required to engage with communities on host organisations and activities for REP placements. The NIAA developed factsheets for jobseekers participating in the REP Trial, including information about: how they could access, change or end a placement; different scenarios in which they would or would not be eligible for a payment; and information for making complaints. Providers were required to provide and explain the fact sheets to participants. Beyond the development of the factsheets, the NIAA advised the ANAO in February 2024 that it had no direct engagement with REP Trial participants, in line with normal practice for the CDP.

3.16 As at January 2024, NCAC had two participants in the REP Trial and PTAC had none.¹⁰⁴ Neither of the two participants had met the 15-hour attendance requirement to be eligible for a REP payment. In October 2022 NCAC had raised concerns about the proposed payment model, which would require participant payments to revert back to their original rate if attendance requirements were only partially met. On 19 October 2023 NCAC reported to the NIAA that:

jobseekers are (variously) disappointed, confused and frustrated by the requirements … consideration [should] be given to [the] value of continuing the trial … the REP placement has been unsuccessful. There is not enough flexibility within the guidelines of the trial to allow success, and the benefits are outweighed by the negatives.

3.17 The NIAA conveyed NCAC’s feedback to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C), as the Secretary of PM&C is the REP payment delegate. The NIAA advised the ANAO in November 2023 that it believed the legislation does not have sufficient flexibility to support participants to meet the attendance requirement and that it is using these learnings in the design of a new trial.

New Jobs Program Trial

3.18 In November to December 2022, the NIAA conducted information sessions and workshops with five co-design groups¹⁰⁵ to inform design of the NJPT.¹⁰⁶ In April and May 2023 feedback on the design proposal and draft grant opportunity guidelines, the minister requested greater emphasis on community control and the NIAA to consult ‘widely not just service providers’. Following this feedback, the NIAA added a grant application assessment criterion for demonstrated encouragement of ‘broad community understanding and ownership’ of proposals. An implementation plan that detailed the consultation approach was presented to the minister in May 2023. The implementation plan involved community information sessions and ‘curated support to interested applicants’.

3.19 The NIAA identified risks in relation to stakeholder engagement with the NJPT, for which it developed mitigations, including a communication strategy. Engagement activities to promote the NJPT included: a newsletter issued to subscribers (November 2022); a forecast grant opportunity on GrantConnect and a newsletter notifying of the forecast opportunity (January 2023); and social media posts, fact sheets and a communication pack for regional office staff to share with external stakeholders at peak body events (September 2023).

NEE Trial

3.20 NCAC’s draft work plan stated that it had held facilitated co-design workshops in five communities in relation to the NEE Trial.

Were trials effectively evaluated?

3.21 The Guide to evaluation under the Indigenous Evaluation Strategy defines evaluation as:

the systematic assessment of a policy or program’s design, implementation and outcomes — it is about understanding what governments are doing right, what they are getting wrong and where they can do better … Before a policy or program is implemented, evaluation should inform policy design. While a policy or program is being implemented, evaluation should inform thinking on ways to improve the policy or program. And after the policy or program has been implemented, evaluation can provide evidence on outcomes and impacts that can be drawn on to inform future policies and programs.¹⁰⁷

3.22 Evaluation methodologies for the trials needed to be clearly defined through fit for purpose evaluation planning.¹⁰⁸ The NIAA’s Place Based Practice Framework requires it work with service providers to ‘monitor and report outcomes and feedback’. The overarching principle of the Indigenous Evaluation Strategy is centring Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, perspectives, priorities and knowledge to produce credible, useful, ethical and transparent evaluations.¹⁰⁹ When collecting original data, evaluations should also include processes to verify results.¹¹⁰

Evaluation planning

3.23 Evaluation plans developed prior to the commencement of a program or trial help ensure that evaluation questions are clarified, the right data is collected, trials are designed in a way that supports data collection and particular evaluation approaches, stakeholders are appropriately engaged in the evaluation, and adequate resources and realistic timeframes are allocated for the evaluation.¹¹¹

3.24 A CDP Trial ‘Monitoring and Reporting Framework’ was approved in February 2023 (for Phase 1) and in December 2023 (for Phase 2). The framework included the expected benefits of the CDP Trial, provider reporting requirements and ‘data points’ to be monitored. An equivalent evaluation framework was not developed for the REP Trial, NJPT or NEE Trial. With regard to the NJPT, the NIAA advised the ANAO in November 2023 that an evaluation plan would be forthcoming and could be provided once available. No evaluation plan was provided, and in February 2024 the NIAA advised the ANAO that the ‘NIAA had been awaiting decisions from government as to any potential change to the scale of NJPT before developing a suitable evaluation approach, and will now progress this as a priority.’

3.25 In May 2023, the NIAA engaged Keogh Bay People Pty Ltd (Keogh Bay Consulting), to perform two streams of work, with a total contract value of $793,750 (GST inclusive).¹¹² The first stream was to ‘[c]apture and synthesise evidence’ to inform the new program design, including information from the trials and ‘on past implementation of CDP’. The second stream was to develop a theory of change, program logic and potential monitoring and evaluation approaches ‘for consideration in the new program’.

3.26 One of the deliverables under the May 2023 contract was a research plan for the CDP Trial, the ‘Ngaanyatjarra Lands trial’ (referring to the REP Trial and NEE Trial) and the NJPT. A research plan developed by Keogh Bay Consulting in May 2023 stated that its purpose was to provide an outline of the ‘monitoring, evidence and learnings’ approach, with a focus on understanding the outcomes of key trials. The plan identified three ‘methodological approaches’ that might be used to ensure the research questions were answered in a ‘robust manner’: (1) a multi-level ‘nested’ approach¹¹³; (2) a mixed method approach¹¹⁴; and (3) a participatory approach. A Keogh Bay Consulting report states that the NIAA’s Indigenous Evaluation Committee¹¹⁵ provided advice with respect to the project methodology.

Evaluation of trials

3.29 The Keogh Bay Consulting contract outlined high-level methods for data collection and analysis for the CDP Trial and NJPT but not for the REP and NEE Trials. For the CDP Trial and the NJPT, the May 2023 contract required the contractor to: visit five fieldwork sites by 30 June 2023 (to be reported by 21 July 2023) and undertake an unspecified number of case studies, surveys, focus groups and ‘limited one on one consultations’.

3.30 Between May and October 2023, the provider undertook 10 site visits for the CDP Trial. Reporting notes that interviews were conducted with 83 individuals in service provider and other organisations and 62 participants and other community members. As at January 2024, the contractor had conducted no fieldwork in relation to the REP Trial, NJPT or NEE Trial. The NIAA advised the ANAO in February 2024 that this was because the REP Trial had had extremely limited participation, no contracts had been signed for the NJPT and the NEE Trial was not yet designed.

3.31 In December 2023, Keogh Bay Consulting reported its findings from the trial site visits, stating that the report presented ‘an outline of the unique nature of each [CDP Trial project]’. Business-as-usual CDP elements were not clearly separated from trial characteristics in the report, making it difficult to understand the unique contribution of the CDP Trial design elements. The findings were a mix of comments about barriers to employment, the CDP in general, and general characteristics of a successful employment program. The report did not identify the specific design features that made CDP Trial projects more or less successful.

3.32 There is no quantitative analysis of trial activity or outcome data and the report’s findings are based primarily on qualitative evidence. The NIAA advised the ANAO in February 2024 that this was because the site visits occurred prior to CDP providers’ final trial reporting. However, the Keogh Bay Consulting report identified a range of issues that related to the trial and evaluation design, and the quality of provider data, which ‘precluded any meaningful quantitative analysis to highlight the effectiveness of the relevant [CDP Trial projects]’, including:

• inability to perform a ‘statistically valid comparison’ by reviewing ‘only ten [CDP Trial] sites’;
• unavailability of data for specific trial sites, with the contractor noting that ‘Where [projects] did not start, or had barely commenced, reports and data were not available’;
• inconsistency of data submitted by providers;
• differences in the metrics applied to different CDP Trial projects;
• self-reported service provider data with ‘assertions that were often difficult to validate’;
• a risk of selection bias due to interviewed participants being identified by the service providers; and
• an ‘incomplete evidence base’ due to the exclusion of Phase 2 of the CDP Trial, as well as the other trials.

3.33 The May 2023 contract with Keogh Bay Consulting indicated reports for ‘early and mid learnings’ would be published on the NIAA website. As at January 2024, no Keogh Bay Consulting reports were published on the NIAA website.

3.34 Commencing in November 2023, the NIAA analysed CDP provider data and reporting, insights from site visits made by NIAA regional office staff, and the Keogh Bay Consulting interim report. The NIAA published this analysis in March 2024 as a six-page ‘synthesis of early learnings’ from the CDP Trial.¹¹⁶ The synthesis states that over 1,300 participants attained paid work opportunities, which represented a 4.3 per cent increase over job placements in the same period 12 months prior. The majority of paid work opportunities were casual and short-term, however around 24 per cent of placements resulted in a 13-week outcome and around 11 per cent resulted in a 26-week outcome. Key learnings were that:

• enhanced case management, such as mentoring, (which was offered by the majority of projects to 2400 participants) is a key driver of participant employment success;
• despite being provided wage subsidies, employers were wary about taking on participants, and preferred their workload and risk to be minimised when employing participants rather than additional financial compensation;
• establishing a new community enterprise (of which 28 were sought to be established during Phase 1 of the CDP Trial but half did not have time during the trial to begin ongoing operations) requires significant support from providers as well as time for ‘proof of concept’;
• award wages and vouchers (as used in 52 trialled projects) are effective drivers of participant engagement, but participants were nervous about increased income risking social security benefits; and
• a new employment model will need to be flexible, developed in close partnership with community stakeholders.

3.35 The synthesis noted significant challenges associated with a ‘quick, large scale shift’ in CDP delivery which limited the benefits of Phase 1 of the CDP Trial. Around $20 million of $51 million in funding was unspent. The report states that this highlighted the importance of ‘generous lead-in times to mobilise new programs in remote areas, rather than issues with the design of the approaches’ but provides no evidence to support this assertion.

3.36 Some outcome data is reported in the aggregate in the synthesis (some of which is compared to a baseline), and the number of projects featuring specific features (such as wage subsidies) are counted, with those features critically assessed. However, the report does not quantitatively link CDP Trial project features to outcomes — a potentially robust evaluation methodology. The NIAA advised the ANAO in February 2024 that:

The CDP Trial comprises over 200 individual projects across Phase 1 and Phase 2. The resources required to assess and link outcomes with each individual project would be a major diversion of resources and would likely not be able to be completed within an appropriate timeframe. We have instead sought to use Keogh Bay site visits to inform a series of case-studies sourcing projects reflecting the variety of different themes and approaches being trialled.

3.37 The NIAA advised the ANAO later in February 2024 that ‘[t]he projects all set out to do different things, with different amounts of money in different operating contexts, so comparing them against each other will not ever be meaningful’. Effective design and data collection planning for the CDP Trial could have precluded some of these perceived barriers to robust evaluation.

3.38 In December 2023, elements of the Keogh Bay Consulting contract were deemed ‘not required’ or a due date was re-negotiated (a program-level monitoring and evaluation framework, a program-level theory of change and an ‘online evidence hub’). In October 2023, Keogh Bay Consulting was invited to respond to a new request for quote to extend the work ‘to align with the timeframes of the various trials and design of a new remote jobs program’. A new agreement extended the Keogh Bay Consulting contract to January 2025 and increased the total value of the contract to $1,598,619 (GST inclusive).¹¹⁷ The extension was assessed by the NIAA to represent value for money.¹¹⁸

3.39 A program level theory of change workshop was specified in the new Keogh Bay Consulting contract. A new Project Plan was due on 19 January 2024, a theory of change was due by 16 February 2024, and various reports were due between January 2024 and January 2025. A program logic was developed in March 2024 and a report titled ‘Implementation Lessons Learned – Summary Report #1’ was provided in April 2024.

Working with service providers to monitor and report trial outcomes

3.40 The NIAA’s Place Based Practice Framework requires that evaluators support and develop a plan with service providers for how to monitor and report short-term outcomes. The government was advised in April 2023 that the NIAA had established processes to ensure core data and information was collected throughout the life of the NJPT.

3.41 Table 3.5 assesses the NIAA’s approach to working with providers and other trial stakeholders to capture data, monitor and report on trial outcomes for each of the three trials underway as at January 2024. The NIAA has worked with CDP Trial providers to identify benefits, develop performance measures, articulate some baseline data, establish data collection mechanisms and generate reports. As at January 2024, work with service providers to monitor and report REP Trial outcomes was less developed, and for the NJPT was largely undeveloped.

Table 3.5: Assessment of work with providers to monitor and report trial outcomes, as at January 2024

Source: ANAO analysis of NIAA documentation.

4.1 In May 2021, the Australian Government committed to replace the CDP by 2023 with a new remote employment program ‘developed in partnership with communities’ (see paragraph 2.16).¹¹⁹ In May 2022¹²⁰, the government committed to replace the CDP with a new remote employment program developed in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.¹²¹ In August 2022, the Minister for Indigenous Australians (the minister) stated:

We are moving decisively to replace the [CDP] with a new program with real jobs, proper wages and decent conditions for Australians living in remote communities … We are deeply committed to being transparent with our program design and bringing First Nations perspectives into Government policy making …¹²²

4.2 The Australian Public Service Commission’s ‘Delivering Great Policy’ model specifies that when developing policy advice, agencies should effectively engage decision makers and collaborate with the people affected by the policy; be informed by evidence and lessons learned from past policies; and follow certain principles.¹²³ Section 10 of the Australian Public Service Act 1999 outlines the APS values, which include that the APS is ‘apolitical and provides the government with advice that is frank, honest, timely and based on the best available evidence.’¹²⁴

4.3 In accordance with the Order to Establish the National Indigenous Australians Agency as an Executive Agency (see paragraph 1.12), the NIAA is responsible for leading and coordinating policy development and program design for the new remote employment program. From May 2022, the NIAA undertook activities to develop policy advice for a new remote employment program that was publicly announced in February 2024 (see Appendix 4).

• In July 2022, the NIAA advised the minister that ‘the process to implement a new program should begin as soon as possible to counter reputational and legal risks and participant disengagement in the current CDP’. Between May and August 2022, the NIAA provided advice to the minister on initial activities to progress the design of a new remote jobs program.
• In October 2022 and December 2022, the government requested advice on the detailed design of a new program in the October 2023 mid-year economic and fiscal outlook (MYEFO) Budget process.
• In June 2023, following an update from the minister to the government, the government requested advice on design parameters by August 2023, including details on implementation; financial implications; and alignment with broader employment services reforms. In July 2023 and August 2023, the NIAA circulated draft advice to other government agencies for comment, however the advice was not finalised for government consideration.
• In September 2023, following an update from the minister to the government, the government requested advice on comprehensive options for a new program by November 2023 and advice on fully costed proposals by May 2024. In November 2023, the NIAA circulated draft advice to other government agencies for comment, however the draft advice was again not finalised.
• In December 2023, following an update from the minister to the government, the government requested advice on a new program by January 2024, including detail on how the program would support remote economic development and interact with existing government services in remote communities. Advice was submitted to government in January 2024, following its circulation to other agencies for comment.
• In January 2024, the government agreed to a proposal for a ‘Remote Jobs and Economic Development Program’ (RJEDP). The government requested advice on a final design for the RJEDP, including an impact analysis (by no later than 30 June 2024) and options for a program that would sit alongside the RJEDP to provide employment services in remote Australia in place of the CDP (in the October 2024 MYEFO Budget process). The government agreed that CDP provider agreements be further extended to 30 June 2025 (see paragraph 2.69).
• On 13 February 2024, while releasing the Closing the Gap 2023 Annual Report and Commonwealth Closing the Gap 2024 Implementation Plan (Implementation Plan)¹²⁵, the government announced $707 million in funding for the RJEDP, which would commence in the second half of 2024 and fund 3,000 jobs over three years.¹²⁶ ‘Replacing the CDP’ was listed as a key action for 2024 in the Implementation Plan.¹²⁷ On 16 February 2024, in response to questions from the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee about the RJEDP, the NIAA stated: ‘there are consultations ongoing with a range of different organisations, including within the portfolio, about how this new program will be designed’ and ‘The detailed program design work will be done in partnership and consultation’.¹²⁸

Were there fit-for-purpose governance arrangements to support the design process?

4.4 In 2018, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) documented a governance framework for CDP reforms announced as part of the 2018–19 Budget. The governance framework ceased in February 2019. A new governance framework was approved for the proposed Remote Employment Program (which did not proceed) in July 2020. A ‘2019 CDP Reforms Program Closure Report’ was endorsed on 14 May 2021. In September 2023, a Remote Jobs Program inter-departmental committee (IDC, see paragraph 4.14) agreed that the NIAA would bring to a future meeting a proposed governance structure for the new program design process. A proposed governance structure was not presented to the IDC, but a draft governance structure was presented to the NIAA’s Economic Empowerment Implementation Committee (EEIC) on 28 November 2023 and approved by the NIAA Chief Executive Officer (CEO) in January 2024. The documented framework describes roles and responsibilities of the EEIC, cross-agency Select Working Group (see paragraph 4.14), IDC, and IT Systems Project Group (see paragraph 4.14) and includes terms of reference for committees. The framework also includes an IDC on employment services and cross-agency working group on mutual obligations led by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR); and an Indigenous advisory body (see paragraph 4.17).

4.5 An overview of governance arrangements supporting the design of a new remote jobs program, in effect as at January 2024, is provided in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1: Governance arrangements related to the design of a new jobs program, as at January 2024a

Note a: The January 2024 governance framework describes reporting arrangements which were not in place as at January 2024 and are not depicted in this diagram. The governance framework depicts the IDC providing advice to the Secretaries Board and the NIAA Deputy CEO, Policy and Programs.

Note b: The Remote Jobs IT Systems Project Group is required to report to the Select Working Group and the Group Manager Economic Empowerment Group (see paragraph 4.14).

Source: ANAO analysis of NIAA records.

Internal governance arrangements

4.6 In May 2021, following the government’s commitment to replace the CDP, the NIAA had established a Remote Employment Policy Taskforce (also called the Remote Engagement Program Taskforce) to prioritise work on the new program. The Remote Employment Policy Taskforce sat within the Economic Policy and Programs Group of the NIAA and reported to the EEIC. In October 2021, the minister announced that a national working group would be established to inform the design of the new program¹²⁹; however, the national working group was not established.

4.7 In August 2023, relevant line areas in the NIAA included the CDP Branch and the Remote Employment Policy Branch. The CDP Branch is responsible for implementation of the CDP and the Remote Employment Policy Branch is responsible for policy advice on a new program to replace the CDP.

4.8 From September 2023, the NIAA put in place additional arrangements to support the program design process. A Remote Employment Implementation Branch was established to coordinate and lead the design and implementation of the new program. The NIAA advised the ANAO in August 2023 that the branch would provide increased resourcing while moving from policy development to implementation. Roles and responsibilities of the branch include establishing governance structures; planning and managing communications and stakeholder engagement; designing and implementing the monitoring and evaluation framework; and developing transition and implementation plans for the new program. The NIAA also established the Remote Employment Taskforce at the direction of government. The Remote Employment Taskforce comprised: the CDP Branch; the Remote Employment Policy Branch; the Remote Employment Implementation Branch¹³⁰; and officials from the Department of the Treasury (Treasury), DEWR and Department of Social Services (DSS) (who were seconded to the NIAA at the direction of government).

4.9 The Australian Government’s Taskforce Toolkit specifies that a taskforce’s scope should be well defined through clear terms of reference and the governance structure should be clear and well documented.¹³¹ The Remote Employment Taskforce’s scope, objectives and deliverables were not clearly articulated. The NIAA advised the ANAO that the Remote Employment Taskforce was closed at the end of 2023.

4.11 Oversight of remote jobs program design occurs through existing NIAA governance committees.

• Executive Board — The Executive Board sets the NIAA’s strategic direction, policy priorities and reform agenda; manages resources; and oversees operations, the use of resources and risk management. The Executive Board comprises the CEO, Chief Operating Officer (COO), two Deputy CEOs and all group managers within the NIAA. From May 2022 to December 2023 the Executive Board met 24 times. The Executive Board discussed a new jobs program at two meetings during this period (May 2022 and June 2022).
• Senior Leadership Committee (SLC)¹³² — The SLC is an advisory body to the Executive Board whose aim is to help drive and operationalise the strategic agenda of the NIAA. The SLC comprises Senior Executive Service (SES) Band-3 officials (the COO and two Deputy CEOs) and SES Band-2 officials (all group managers). From May 2022 to December 2023 the SLC met 20 times. The SLC discussed a new jobs program at three meetings during this period (September 2022, June 2023 and December 2023).
• Economic Empowerment Implementation Committee¹³³ — The EEIC is an advisory body to the NIAA Executive formed in 2021 after a KPMG ‘CDP Reform Health Check’. The EEIC’s stated purpose is to provide strategic advice and cross-portfolio collaboration on the design and implementation of activities relating to economic participation and development. The EEIC’s four priorities include providing advice on policy, programs and strategy (including replacing the CDP). The EEIC comprises senior officials from several NIAA groups, including Operations and Delivery, which at January 2024 was comprised of the NIAA regional network and a remote Australia project group. The EEIC met approximately monthly between May 2021 and December 2023. Internal reporting on the new remote jobs program design process was provided to the EEIC through a monthly ‘project progress report’.¹³⁴ Available meeting minutes¹³⁵ reflect that the EEIC often commented on, or at least noted, the progress report. Progress reports tracked key milestones, however the presentation of risks, issues and delays lacked detail, with the same few risks being included in most reports.

4.12 The role of the Audit and Risk Committee (ARC) is to provide independent advice and assistance to the NIAA CEO on financial and performance reporting, risk oversight and management and internal controls. From June 2022 to September 2023, reporting on the CDP to the ARC related primarily to business-as-usual CDP provider compliance and grants administration, rather than the CDP reform process. In November 2023, the Group Manager of the Economic Empowerment Group and the Branch Manager of the Remote Employment Implementation Branch briefed the ARC on the development of the new remote jobs program, stating that internal governance arrangements and project management functions were being established. A draft risk assessment (the CDP reform register) was also presented, which contained eight ‘high’ risks, 13 ‘medium’ risks and one ‘low’ risk.¹³⁶ The ARC requested an update in June 2024.

Cross-government governance arrangements

4.13 Prior to September 2022, cross-government governance arrangements relevant to a new remote employment program comprised the following.

• The 2018 framework for CDP reforms established the ‘CDP Reforms Board’, which was comprised of SES Band-3 officials from PM&C, Department of Jobs and Small Business, Department of Human Services, and Department of Social Services; an SES Band-1 management committee; and working groups to manage specific components of the reforms. The last meeting of the CDP Reforms Board was in December 2018 and the governance framework was wound up in February 2019.
• In March 2021, the NIAA established a cross-agency Select Working Group comprising SES Band-2 officials to ‘provide formal governance for the design and implementation’ and ‘coordinate perspectives across Government and share policy insights’ to inform the development of the new program. The SWG met monthly between March 2021 and August 2021, met once in March 2022, and resumed meetings in September 2022.

4.14 The NIAA established additional cross-government structures to support the program design process from September 2022.

• Between September 2022 and December 2023, the cross-agency Select Working Group met most months to discuss the CDP and the new remote jobs program. The group is chaired by the Group Manager of the NIAA’s Economic Empowerment Group and as at January 2024 comprises officials from the NIAA, DEWR, DSS, PM&C, Services Australia, Treasury, and the departments of: Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF); Education; Finance (Finance); and Health and Aged Care (Health).
• Advice from the minister to the Prime Minister in April 2023 identified a ‘high risk’ that an IT system would not be implemented to support a program rollout in November 2024. In March 2023 the Remote Jobs IT Systems Project Group (IT Systems Project Group) was established, comprising officials from the NIAA, DEWR and Services Australia. The terms of reference state the purpose of the group is ‘to develop and implement the new remote jobs IT system platform’. Meetings were to be held monthly, with meeting frequency to increase ‘as activity intensifies’. The group met nine times between March 2023 to December 2023. As at January 2024 the group was awaiting advice on program design before commencing initial design work. No updates had been provided to the Group Manager of the Economic Empowerment Group and the SWG as required by the Remote Jobs IT Systems Project Group’s terms of reference.
• A Remote Jobs Program IDC was established in June 2023. The IDC is chaired by an NIAA Deputy CEO and comprises SES Band-3 officials from the Australian Taxation Office, DAFF, DEWR, DSS, Finance, Health, NIAA, PM&C, Services Australia, and Treasury.¹³⁷ The July 2023 terms of reference state that ‘The IDC will coordinate perspectives across Government and share policy insights to inform the development of a new remote jobs program’ and that it would meet monthly until the end of 2023. Meetings occurred monthly from June 2023 to November 2023.¹³⁸ There was no documented relationship between the IDC and the cross-agency Select Working Group, which has a similar function and membership.
• In August 2023, the IDC agreed to establish cross-agency working groups to consider specific aspects of the new program design (mutual obligation requirements; boundaries between remote and non-remote employment services regions; and IT). As at January 2024, the additional working groups were not established.¹³⁹

Indigenous and place-based representation in governance arrangements

4.15 In August 2023, the EEIC was advised that the most frequent feedback from consultation was that ‘locals need to have more of a role in the planning, priorities and delivery of the new program’. Involvement of the NIAA regional network¹⁴⁰ in the remote jobs program design process occurred primarily through two mechanisms.

• Line management fortnightly meetings — A fortnightly meeting of regional network managers; managers of the three CDP branches; and the Group Manager of the Economic Empowerment Group was established in 2022.
• Representation at EEIC meetings — One regional manager attended EEIC meetings from June 2022 to March 2023. Participation of regional managers in EEIC increased from April 2023, and from November 2023 most regional managers were attending EEIC meetings.

4.16 In September 2023, the NIAA considered how to include the regional network in processes to design a new remote jobs program and develop advice for government. As at January 2024, formal involvement of the regional network in the design of the new program is through the EEIC.

4.17 The draft governance framework presented to the EEIC in November 2023 included a proposal regarding ‘First Nations governance’, which involved the Coalition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peak Organisations (Coalition of Peaks)¹⁴¹ and a ‘First Nations Governance Body’. The presentation stated ‘A new formalised governance structure may be required to meet the commitment to design in partnership with First Nations Australians’. In December 2023, the NIAA consulted with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations including the Coalition of Peaks and land councils on the proposed ‘First Nations Governance Body’. The January 2024 governance framework included a ‘First Nations Advisory Group’. The government agreed to establish the ‘First Nations Reference Group’ in January 2024.

4.18 Proposed terms of reference stated that the group would be established from March 2024 for an initial term of one year; comprise members nominated by organisations selected by the minister; and provide advice to government. The advice to the minister stated that ‘Some stakeholders may have expectations of a joint-decision making model that results in delegated legal authority’ and that the Coalition of Peaks did not consider the proposed model for the First Nations Reference Group to be a genuine in-partnership arrangement or consistent with the principles set out in the Closing the Gap agreement. To mitigate the risk that the First Nations Reference Group would not be perceived as a mechanism for working in partnership with community, the NIAA recommended to the minister that the members of the group include representatives of CDP participants nominated by four CDP providers that are also Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations. The NIAA advised that establishing the First Nations Reference Group would support Priority Reform One of the Closing the Gap agreement related to formal partnerships and shared decision-making.¹⁴² The advice stated that the establishment of the First Nations Reference Group by March 2024 would ‘be critical to ensure the [First Nations Reference Group] is able to participate in, or facilitate community consultation and engagement activities which will commence from February 2024.’

Was there fit-for-purpose stakeholder engagement to inform a new design?

4.19 The need for effective community engagement in the design of a new jobs program is explicit in Australian Government commitments for a new remote jobs program and in the NIAA’s broader mandate.

• In February 2023, as part of the Closing the Gap agreement, the government committed to working in partnership and shared decision-making with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to move beyond ‘ad-hoc engagement processes’.¹⁴³
• In announcing its intention to replace the CDP, the government committed that the new program would be designed in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. In August 2022, the minister stated:

It is vital we put all the issues on the table, really debate them, and then in partnership, explore models that work for each community and their social and economic aspirations.¹⁴⁴

• In addition to designing and coordinating the delivery of community development employment projects, the NIAA’s Executive Order specifies that it must consult on these projects and that it is required to:

… build and maintain effective partnerships with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, state and territory governments and other relevant stakeholders to inform whole-of-government priorities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and enable policies, programs and services to be tailored to the unique needs of communities.¹⁴⁵

• The NIAA’s 2023–24 Corporate Plan states that it ‘works in genuine partnership to enable the self-determination and aspirations of First Nations communities’.¹⁴⁶
• The NIAA’s Place Based Practice Framework provides guidance and tools to assist staff to apply place-based practice when designing and implementing policies and programs. Key principles underpinning the Place Based Practice Framework include that ‘we engage and partner with community as active participants in co-design strategies to drive transformational change’.

4.20 The APS framework for engagement and participation and Taskforce Toolkit include standards for engaging with external stakeholders, which include defining the engagement’s objectives and choosing the right engagement approach through an engagement plan; identifying stakeholders with suitable expertise, skills and knowledge; executing the engagement plan in a considered and transparent way; recording stakeholder feedback and interactions; ensuring that stakeholder views presented are fairly considered at the decision-making stage; and providing feedback to stakeholders in a timely manner.¹⁴⁷

Community consultation — 2017 to July 2022

4.21 In December 2017, PM&C released a discussion paper with options for remote employment services (see paragraph 2.7). The discussion paper received 40 written submissions. An analysis by the NIAA in 2020 stated that the themes were consistent with evidence provided to the 2017 Senate inquiry into the Appropriateness and Effectiveness of the Objectives, Design, Implementation and Evaluation of the Community Development Program.

4.22 In 2020, the NIAA assessed that consultation to inform CDP reforms was not on track (see paragraph 2.10). In August 2021, the NIAA released a public discussion paper which received 34 written submissions. An August 2021 consultation plan indicated that the next phase of consultations would involve publication of a second discussion paper from December 2021 to April 2022. This did not occur.

4.23 Between October and November 2021, a contracted provider (Inside Policy) conducted interviews with 43 CDP providers. A February 2022 analysis of the written submissions and interviews by Inside Policy stated that ‘key policy implications’ for the ongoing development of the new program included ensuring more time was spent engaging with stakeholders in the policy design process. A March 2022 update to the NIAA Executive Board noted outbreaks of COVID-19 in communities and stated that further consultations would prioritise jobseekers in communities when it was safe to do so, with online consultation approaches to be created in the interim. The NIAA advised the ANAO in August 2023 that feedback on these consultations was that there was insufficient in-person consultation with CDP participants and communities and that due to COVID-19 restrictions consultations were overly focused on CDP providers.

Community consultation — from August 2022

Stakeholder engagement planning

4.24 A stakeholder engagement plan should set the objective and scope of the consultations, identify stakeholders and appropriate forms of engagement, and set milestones and timeframes. Publishing a consultation plan improves the transparency of policy development and enables stakeholders to engage more effectively in the process.¹⁴⁸

4.25 The NIAA had plans for stakeholder consultation and engagement from November 2022. The plans and draft plans set out the objective of the consultations, listed stakeholders and established milestones (phases). The various plans (and planned consultation phases) did not relate to each other and progress with consultation activities could not be fully assessed by the ANAO as timeframes were not included or were inconsistent. None of the plans were published.

4.26 The NIAA advised the minister in November 2023 that it would develop communications and stakeholder plans ‘to outline our future consultation activities to inform the design of the replacement program’. The NIAA’s advice stated the plans would ‘outline who we will speak to, for what purpose, and when, to inform the design and continuous improvement of a new remote employment program.’ In an update to the NIAA Audit and Risk Committee (ARC) in November 2023, the NIAA stated there was an ‘expectation from high profile stakeholders and community that they are engaged in the design and development of a replacement to CDP’. In a draft risk assessment provided to the ARC, the NIAA proposed to develop a ‘detailed stakeholder engagement plan’ and a ‘detailed community consultation plan’ by May 2024 as a treatment to address the risk of ineffective or inappropriate stakeholder consultation. The NIAA advised the ANAO that the reference to ‘May 2024’ in the risk assessment was a typographical error, and that it should have stated February 2024.

4.27 The NIAA’s Place Based Practice Framework describes a spectrum of community engagement approaches, from passive (providing information or obtaining feedback from communities) to empowering (involving the community in aspects of the decision-making process). The Place Based Practice Framework states that empowering engagement approaches are achieved through community advisory committees, co-design sessions¹⁴⁹, and participatory and delegated decision-making.

4.28 The ANAO examined a draft stakeholder engagement plan that was developed between May and November 2023. The November 2023 draft stakeholder engagement plan did not refer to the Place Based Practice Framework and did not include activities consistent with empowering engagement approaches. While the draft stakeholder engagement plan referred to a process ‘to test potential design principles’ for a new program, it did not document what this process would involve or how it would be used. The draft stakeholder engagement plan did not include any mechanisms for co-design, such as co-design sessions or advisory committees.

4.29 A Consultation Plan for the new program announced in February 2024 (the RJEDP) was approved in mid-April 2024. The NIAA website was updated to include community consultation dates to June 2024.¹⁵⁰

4.30 Plans should inform activities. Consultation activities on a new remote employment program undertaken to April 2024 were not guided by an appropriate and endorsed plan that was transparent to the community being consulted.

Stakeholder identification

4.31 Stakeholder lists were prepared by the NIAA in August 2022, December 2022 and in the November 2023 draft stakeholder engagement plan. The list in the draft stakeholder engagement plan had seven categories¹⁵¹ across three colour-coded tiers¹⁵² and was an updated version of the December 2022 list. The list in the overview was high-level and categorised by ‘impact level’ (high, medium or low). While key stakeholder categories were identified, the list of individual stakeholders within these groups was partially complete.

Stakeholder consultation activities

4.32 Table 4.1 outlines the consultation activities undertaken on a new remote employment program from August 2022 to January 2024. As discussed in paragraphs 3.9 to 3.20, the NIAA also undertook consultations on the remote employment trials. As at January 2024, the NIAA had mostly completed phase 1 (‘listen and learn’) of the draft stakeholder engagement plan. A public discussion paper to guide further discussion with stakeholders in phase 2 (‘check back/principles’) was published in January 2024 in accordance with the draft plan. The draft stakeholder engagement plan did not include a date range for phase 2. In February 2024, the NIAA website was updated to state that the ‘next stage of consultations will focus on the design of a new jobs program and how it should work in practice’ and that this would include consultations in remote communities in the first half of 2024.¹⁵³

Table 4.1: Community consultation on remote jobs program, August 2022 to January 2024

Note a: Minister for Indigenous Australians, ‘Putting remote employment issues on the table’, media release, Parliament House, Canberra, 31 August 2022.

Note b: NIAA, Employment in remote Australia [Internet], 2023, available from: https://www.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/files/employment-in-remote-australia-issues-for-discussion.pdf [accessed 22 December 2023].

Note c: NIAA, Have your say on replacing CDP with a new remote jobs program [Internet], available from https://www.niaa.gov.au/indigenous-affairs/employment/have-your-say-replacing-cdp-new-remote-jobs-program [accessed 8 February 2024].

Note d: NIAA, CDP Replacement Program Survey [Internet], available from https://niaa.snapforms.com.au/form/replacing-cdp [accessed 8 February 2024].

Source: ANAO analysis of NIAA records.

4.33 Between January 2023 and June 2023, consultation meetings involving 111 communities were held (see Table 4.2), with an average attendance of 10 to 15 people. Regional office staff were responsible for identifying stakeholders, however the process used to ensure relevant stakeholders were invited was not systematic or documented.¹⁵⁴ The meetings were held in 49 of 60 CDP regions and nine of 10 NIAA regions in which the CDP operates. The NIAA advised the ANAO that decisions about which CDP regions to hold meetings in was based on advice from regional offices. Consultation was limited in the Central Australia region¹⁵⁵ and no consultation occurred in the Torres Strait Islands or with the Torres Strait Regional Authority.¹⁵⁶

Table 4.2: Community consultation meetings, January–June 2023

Note a: Communities were identified by the ANAO from a report prepared by the NIAA in November 2023. There are discrepancies between the data in this report, other NIAA records, and a document tabled in the Senate in August 2023 which included a list of communities ‘consulted on CDP reforms’ as at 31 July 2023. The NIAA advised the ANAO that one community (Tjuntjuntjara) was ‘missed’ from the list tabled in the Senate.

Source: ANAO analysis of NIAA records.

4.34 The community consultation meetings were structured around questions that focused on general principles of a new program and employment opportunities in CDP communities, and did not cover potential models or design elements of a remote jobs program. Topics were broadly similar to those previously covered in a public discussion paper (see paragraph 4.22). Talking points provided to the regional network included a suggested response to the question ‘Why are you consulting again on replacing CDP (I provided comments earlier in 2022)?’ There were no co-design activities.

4.35 Other types of stakeholders were able to provide input in the form of a written contribution or survey response but were not similarly consulted. In August 2023, PM&C advised the NIAA that the Coalition of Peaks was seeking to be more involved in the program design process. In November 2023, the Chair of the IDC stated that the minister had received correspondence from a Northern Territory land council regarding the need for more consultation and information about program trials and new program. Discussion at the EEIC meeting in November 2023 referred to feedback that the NIAA was consulting with providers and not participants. In November 2023, the NIAA advised the minister that ‘Not all relevant organisations and peak bodies were included in the consultation and may raise issue.’ In December 2023, the NIAA held meetings with employment peak bodies and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations¹⁵⁷ to discuss program design and proposed governance arrangements.

Reporting of and feedback on consultation outcomes

4.36 The draft stakeholder engagement plan stated that ‘key themes’ and ‘important/characteristic quotes’ from consultations undertaken from August 2022 to June 2023 would be consolidated and would form the basis of a public paper to guide further discussion with stakeholders. In November 2023, the NIAA provided to the minister a report, a one-page summary and short video on the key findings from the consultations — with findings summarised under seven themes.¹⁵⁸ The documents were published on the NIAA website on 22 January 2024.¹⁵⁹ In September 2023 the NIAA shared the seven key themes included in the consultation report in a newsletter to CDP providers.

4.37 From September 2023 to December 2023, NIAA staff gave presentations on findings from the consultations to Empowered Communities¹⁶⁰, West Arnhem Regional Council, the National Employment Services Association, Raising the Bar¹⁶¹, and the CDP provider forum (see note to paragraph 2.67). Presentation materials included a high-level summary of themes raised in the consultations.

4.38 At an internal NIAA meeting on 1 December 2023, NIAA staff who attended the CDP provider forum described ‘frustration’ among CDP providers about a lack of information about the new program and a lack of decisions from government. However, staff suggested that consultations may have contributed to a stronger sense of collaboration compared to the previous year.

Was there a fit-for-purpose use of evidence and program logic to inform a new design?

4.39 Policy and program design should be informed by stakeholder and expert views; and a robust evidence base, drawing on data and previous experience.¹⁶² Fit-for-purpose monitoring and evaluation arrangements should be established early in the policy cycle, and policies and programs should have clearly articulated and measurable objectives.¹⁶³ The Productivity Commission’s Indigenous Evaluation Strategy provides guidance for Australian Government agencies to use when selecting, planning, conducting and using evaluations of policies and programs affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.¹⁶⁴

Cross-government collaboration

4.40 The need for NIAA to collaborate with other government agencies in the design of a new remote jobs program was identified by the NIAA. In February 2023 the NIAA made commitments to the government that it would undertake cross-portfolio work to mitigate risks, resolve design and implementation issues, and ensure alignment with broader work occurring across government.

4.41 Cross-government collaboration initially occurred through an existing working group. The NIAA also provided input to broader employment services reform processes coordinated by other government agencies. The NIAA developed further arrangements to embed cross-government support in the policy development process from March 2023 (see paragraph 4.14). In September 2023, the government decided that officials from Treasury, DEWR and DSS be seconded to the NIAA to support the design of a new program.

4.42 In preparing draft advice to government throughout 2023, the NIAA shared exposure drafts with other government agencies (see paragraph 4.3). The NIAA received feedback from consulted agencies that the process did not allow sufficient time for the NIAA to address key issues; and that insufficient information was provided to enable other agencies to assess costs, legal risks and implementation issues.

4.43 As at January 2024, key issues relating to the design of a new jobs program requiring collaboration with other government agencies were not significantly progressed. In January 2024, the NIAA CEO was advised by the Branch Manager of the Remote Employment Implementation Branch that delivery of the government’s commitment to replace the CDP would be at risk if agreement on implementation was not secured across government agencies.

Use of evidence to inform program design

4.44 Since the implementation of the CDP in 2015, evidence to inform the development of a remote employment program to replace the CDP was generated through parliamentary and Auditor-General reports; and other reviews of the CDP and remote employment. In May 2023, the NIAA undertook a preliminary literature review, which analysed 50 sources from 2015 to 2023, including academic papers; consultation documents and stakeholder feedback; parliamentary committee and Auditor-General reports; and government strategies, reviews, and evaluations. The review identified key themes in the literature, evidence gaps, and options for consideration in the development of a new program. One of the Keogh Bay Consulting deliverables (see paragraph 3.25) was to undertake an evidence synthesis, which would translate key literature and evidence sources into ‘initial directions’ for the new program. Keogh Bay Consulting provided the NIAA with an ‘Early Evidence Summary Report’ in July 2023, a draft ‘Early Learnings Synthesis’ report in November 2023, a presentation in December 2023, and an ‘Implementation Lessons Learned Summary Report’ in April 2024.

4.45 In August 2023, the NIAA commissioned Deloitte Access Economics to undertake research on the cost of remote employment in services sectors and to identify models to generate jobs in remote areas, based on a case study of three to five CDP regions, with a total contract value of $392,901 (GST inclusive).¹⁶⁵ A draft interim report provided in October 2023 included a framework to assess the costs and benefits of employment models; analysis of largely publicly available data on the workforce and service profile of CDP regions; and a preliminary assessment of one potential model. The NIAA subsequently extended the contract twice: on 1 November 2023 the end date was changed from 30 October 2023 to 31 December 2023; and on 19 December 2023 the end date was changed to 30 June 2024.

4.46 In November 2023, the NIAA provided to the minister a report on the key findings from community consultations held from August 2022 to June 2023.

4.47 Draft policy advice circulated by the NIAA to other agencies in 2023 and early 2024 included limited detail on how specific options were informed by evidence (including stakeholder consultation feedback). For example, draft advice included three options for the number of jobs to be funded by the new program, however the rationale for these options was not explained and the options were not supported by modelling or other evidence. PM&C had provided feedback to the NIAA that the numbers of jobs appeared to be ‘arbitrary’.

4.48 In January 2024, the government agreed to a proposal for a ‘Remote Jobs and Economic Development Program’, which would commence in the second half of 2024 and fund 3,000 jobs over three years. The proposed model was similar to the New Jobs Program Trial (NJPT, see Table 3.1). The January 2024 advice to government provided information on how high-level features of the proposed program were informed by consultations and trials, however did not include evidence from experiences of the CDP, 1,000 Jobs Package (see paragraph 3.5) or NJPT. The advice to government noted that around 15,000 CDP participants were estimated to be job ready and identified the risk that a new program that only provides funding for jobs for a proportion of CDP participants may not meet some stakeholder expectations. To mitigate this risk, the advice referred to broader economic development measures to provide employment opportunities in remote communities, however this work was at a preliminary stage.

4.49 In developing advice for government, the NIAA received feedback from the Treasury in August 2023 on the need to address how the new jobs program would support remote economic development. This advice was requested by government in December 2023 (see paragraph 4.3). The January 2024 advice to government included general information on how the program could support remote economic development. No modelling or other evidence of the expected economic impacts of the new program were provided.

Program logic and evaluation framework

4.52 A program logic is a visual representation of the relationships between inputs, activities, outputs and outcomes to show how a program is intended to work to achieve outcomes and to support program evaluation.¹⁶⁶ The NIAA has internal guidance on developing program logics, which states they are an important part of program design because they ‘unpack how an initiative is intended to achieve results’.

4.53 A program logic was first developed for the CDP in 2015 by PM&C and revised in 2018 to reflect planned reforms to the program, which partially proceeded in 2019. As part of its May 2023 engagement, Keogh Bay Consulting was to develop a program logic, theory of change¹⁶⁷ and draft evaluation framework for the new remote jobs program (see paragraph 3.25). A preliminary theory of change was developed at a workshop in July 2023, however the NIAA advised the ANAO in September 2023 that the workshop was a high-level process and the program logic was not further progressed in 2023.

4.54 In a risk register presented to the Audit and Risk Committee in November 2023, a medium risk was ‘The recommended design for a new employment program does not have a clearly articulated program logic and an evaluation framework that does not define success’. Risk ‘sources’ were described as lack of planning, limited resources, inadequate capabilities and limited timeframes. The NIAA’s draft risk assessment stated that the NIAA intended to implement the treatment (another workshop) to reduce the risk by June 2024. An extended contract with Keogh Bay Consulting (see paragraph 3.39) included a theory of change to be delivered by 16 February 2024 and a program logic workshop. A workshop and program logic was delivered in late March 2024.¹⁶⁸

4.55 The importance of effective evaluation has been raised in reviews and parliamentary inquiries relating to the CDP since at least 2017. One of four parliamentary committee recommendations assessed by the Policy and Delivery Committee in 2020 as requiring follow-up (see paragraph 2.10) was recommendation 21 (that a rigorous, transparent and impartial evaluation process be developed to guide implementation and delivery). The Policy and Delivery Committee also considered that a 2019 Gateway Review’s recommendations relating to monitoring and evaluation¹⁶⁹ were not implemented. In December 2019, the NIAA procured advice from Anne Markiewicz and Associates on the development of an evaluation strategy for the CDP reforms that were introduced in 2019.¹⁷⁰ The contractor provided a program logic on how the reforms were expected to deliver outcomes and proposed an evaluation methodology, however the NIAA decided not to progress the evaluation at that time.

4.56 The May 2023 Keogh Bay Consulting contract required the contractor to develop a monitoring and evaluation framework to support the new jobs program by 9 September 2023, however this was not done. The NIAA considered the design of a new remote jobs program to be insufficiently developed to progress a monitoring and evaluation framework, and the NIAA determined that this deliverable was no longer required of the contractor as at December 2023.

Did policy advice reflect the core elements of the Delivering Great Policy model?

4.59 The function of policy advice is to provide decision-makers with the information they need to make the best possible decision. The Australian Public Service Commission’s ‘Delivering Great Policy’ model articulates four core elements of great policy advice:

• Clear on intent — ‘We are clear on the policy intent and what our role is, so our advice is relevant and focused on the outcome we’re trying to achieve.’
• Well-informed — ‘We are forward looking and learn from the past. We actively seek multiple and diverse perspectives including from those affected by the policy, so we have a robust evidence-base.’
• Practical to implement — ‘We work with those involved in implementation and try out multiple options, so we have a practical solution and a plan for evaluation.’
• Influential — ‘The right people have been engaged along the way, and your advice is tailored to the audience and context so it has the best chance of landing well.’¹⁷¹

4.60 In January 2024, the NIAA provided advice to government on the high-level features of a new remote jobs program, and the government announced a new program in February 2024.

4.61 The government had signalled its intention to fundamentally reform or replace the CDP from 2017. No overarching plan was developed to support implementation of the government’s commitments to reform the CDP or transition to a new program, and a formal assessment of CDP reform risks was not developed until late 2023 and remained a work-in-progress as at January 2024.

4.62 As at January 2024, at the time of its advice to government, the NIAA had not developed a program logic or evaluation framework to articulate the announced program’s intended outcomes, how proposed program features would achieve outcomes, and how those outcomes would be measured.

4.63 In 2023, the NIAA undertook activities to build an evidence base for a new program, which included synthesising previous reviews, contracting experts, conducting trials and undertaking some stakeholder consultation. However, at the time that a high-level program design was provided to government in January 2024:

• previous programs such as the CDP and 1,000 Jobs Package had not been not systematically evaluated, and the NIAA did not use CDP data to inform the design of a new program;
• the NJPT’s and other trials’ timing, design and/or limited evaluation weakened their usefulness in informing a new program design;
• community consultations had not moved beyond high level ‘phase 1’ questions and did not test design options; and
• the evidence base was not clearly linked to proposed design features of a new remote jobs program.

4.64 The NIAA was responsible for meeting the government’s clear and repeated commitment to design the new program in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Designing and implementing a new program to replace the CDP required the NIAA to engage with stakeholders across government and community.

• The NIAA established governance arrangements to support program reform, however these arrangements were formalised through a documented governance framework weeks before a new program was announced.
• A consultation plan was not finalised until several months after the program’s announcement.
• Arrangements for the formal involvement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the design and implementation of a new program, were not finalised at the time of announcement.
• Collaboration across government did not involve the identification and management of shared risks.

Appendix 1 Entity response

Appendix 2 Improvements observed by the ANAO

1. The existence of independent external audit, and the accompanying potential for scrutiny improves performance. Improvements in administrative and management practices usually occur: in anticipation of ANAO audit activity; during an audit engagement; as interim findings are made; and/or after the audit has been completed and formal findings are communicated.

2. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit (JCPAA) has encouraged the ANAO to consider ways in which the ANAO could capture and describe some of these impacts. The ANAO’s Corporate Plan states that the ANAO’ s annual performance statements will provide a narrative that will consider, amongst other matters, analysis of key improvements made by entities during a performance audit process based on information included in tabled performance audit reports.

3. Performance audits involve close engagement between the ANAO and the audited entity as well as other stakeholders involved in the program or activity being audited. Throughout the audit engagement, the ANAO outlines to the entity the preliminary audit findings, conclusions and potential audit recommendations. This ensures that final recommendations are appropriately targeted and encourages entities to take early remedial action on any identified matters during the course of an audit. Remedial actions entities may take during the audit include:

• strengthening governance arrangements;
• introducing or revising policies, strategies, guidelines or administrative processes; and
• initiating reviews or investigations.

4. In this context, the below actions were observed by the ANAO during the course of the audit. It is not clear whether these actions and/or the timing of these actions were planned in response to proposed or actual audit activity. The ANAO has not sought to obtain assurance over the source of these actions or whether they have been appropriately implemented.

Table A.1: Actions observed during the course of the audit

Appendix 3 Implementation status of agreed 2017 parliamentary committee recommendations

Key: ■ Not implemented ▲ Partly implemented ◆ Fully implemented

Note a: Finance and Public Administration References Committee, Appropriateness and effectiveness of the objectives, design, implementation and evaluation of the Community Development Program, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, December 2017, pp. xii–xiv.

Note b: Australian Government, Australian Government response to the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee inquiry report: The appropriateness and effectiveness of the objectives, design, implementation and evaluation of the Community Development Program (CDP), November 2018, pp. 10, 11, 13 and 17.

Note c: As at December 2023 the NIAA assessed Recommendation 21 as ‘implemented’.

Source: 2017 Inquiry report, government response to the 2017 Inquiry and ANAO analysis.

Appendix 4 Timeline of program design process, May 2022–January 2024

Source: ANAO analysis of NIAA documentation.