Open Research will be updating the system on Tuesday, 14 July 2026, from 8:15 to 9:00 AM. We apologise for any inconvenience caused.

Cultural advice

The Australian National University acknowledges, celebrates and pays our respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people of the Canberra region and to all First Nations Australians on whose traditional lands we meet and work, and whose cultures are among the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are advised that ANU Library collections may include images, names, voices, and other representations of deceased persons.

Material in the collection may contain terms, language or views that reflect the period in which the item was created and may be considered inappropriate today.

Financial penalties under the Remote Jobs and Communities Program

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Date

Authors

Fowkes, L
Sanders, Will

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Canberra, ACT : Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research (CAEPR), The Australian National University

Abstract

In July 2013, a new Australian Government-funded labour market program was implemented across remote Australia: the Remote Jobs and Communities Program (RJCP). The program (now renamed and restructured as the Community Development Programme - CDP) had a case load of around 36 000 people, of whom about 85% were Indigenous. Most people in the program were required to participate in activities as a condition of receiving income support and were subject to the Job Seeker Compliance Framework, which sets out financial penalties and safeguards for those who fail to comply. This paper examines penalties applied to participants in RJCP during the two years from 1 July 2013 and compares them with penalties applied under the general equivalent program, Job Services Australia. We find that penalties were applied to RJCP jobseekers at a much higher rate, and that this was particularly the case for penalties associated with mandatory Work for the Dole-type activities and 'persistent noncompliance'. The difference appears to arise from (1) more onerous program requirements in RJCP, (2) ineffectiveness of protections for remote jobseekers, and (3) different individual and local responses to program requirements and penalties. We end by noting the recent reform of RJCP into CDP and the likely impact on future application of financial penalties.

Description

Keywords

Citation

Source

Book Title

Entity type

Access Statement

Open Access

License Rights

DOI

Restricted until

abcd