To estimate future numbers of Indigenous jobs, separate calculations are made for mainstream (non-CDEP scheme employment) and CDEP-scheme employment.^[9] Previous estimation of mainstream employment growth was based on an assumption that this would continue at the rate observed between 1991 and 1996, of 1.3 per cent per annum (Taylor & Hunter 1998: 17). Historically, this is a relatively high annual rate of Indigenous employment growth and it incorporates the impact of government-sponsored Working Nation job programs in boosting the numbers counted as employed. Since 1996, a number of significant changes have occurred in the labour market. This assumed growth rate is therefore in need of review, although this can only be undertaken by inference because reliable inter-censal estimates of Indigenous employment are absent from sources such as the monthly Labour Force Survey (LFS) (Hunter & Taylor 2001).

The first important change was the dismantling of Working Nation programs in 1996 and the second was the subsequent privatisation of employment services. Indigenous people were over-represented in Working Nation programs (Taylor & Hunter 1996) and the new Job Network has generally failed in servicing the needs of Indigenous people (Commonwealth Grants Commission (CGC) 2000), so the assumption is made here that these developments served to deflate the original estimate of mainstream employment growth. On the other hand, in 1999, the government launched the Indigenous Employment Policy (IEP), which restored, for Indigenous job seekers, many of the features of Working Nation programs including wage subsidies for eligible employers (see Shergold, Ch. 8, this volume). In addition, since 1996, employment growth overall in the labour market has been buoyant, with a concomitant substantial decline in the rate of unemployment. In turn, these developments may be assumed to have boosted the employment prospects of Indigenous job seekers. Thus, balancing all these factors leads to the conclusion that the original assumption of 1.3 per cent per annum growth in Indigenous mainstream employment should be retained.

Greater certainty surrounds the future scale of CDEP employment. The broad level of participation in the scheme is controlled by agreement between ATSIC and government at a national policy level, while the actual allocation of places stems from administrative procedures enacted by ATSIC Regional Councils. Thus, planned participant numbers provided by ATSIC provide a basis for estimation. As for demand, less is understood about why communities and individuals seek to participate in CDEP, but the proven capacity for rapid expansion of the scheme suggests that many more would if they could (Sanders 1993).

Previous estimates of growth in CDEP employment were constructed from a composite of assumptions informed by analysis of the administrative procedures for new participant places. For example, given the intermittent nature of CDEP scheme work in 1996 and the fact that non-working spouses of participants could be included in participant totals, the percentage of scheme participants who could be counted as employed (according to ABS criteria) was set at 60 per cent in remote areas and 80 per cent in the rest of the country. Following the review of the scheme in 1997 (Spicer 1997) and implementation of reforms to focus more on equipping participants for mainstream work, these ratios were assumed to rise to 80 per cent and 90 per cent respectively. This effected a jump in estimated participant numbers from 21 228 in 1998 to 27 028 in 1999, with numbers increasing thereafter by 550 per annum in line with government provision for the expansion of existing schemes (Taylor & Hunter 1998: 17).

Subsequent administrative developments require that these assumptions be revised. First of all, the recommendations of the Spicer Review, in emphasising the importance of the scheme as an employment program, coincided with the movement off the scheme of non-working participants to become clients of the social security system (see Sanders, Ch. 6, this volume). As a consequence, ATSIC now advises that all registered participants should be classified as employed. Initially, it was assumed that this push towards a more work-focused scheme would put off the need for expansion since CDEP could ‘expand’ internally by re-classifying non-working participants, thereby increasing the proportion of participants who were working. However, provision for an additional 1500 places was announced in the 2000–01 Federal Budget and this is factored in to revised estimates of future CDEP employment, along with provision for 580 additional places annually to accommodate natural growth.

The impact of these revisions on projected employment estimates is shown in Table 11.1. As indicated, mainstream employment estimates remain unaltered but CDEP employment is raised markedly, commencing in 1999. The overall effect is that by the end of the projection period (in 2006), the number of the Indigenous employed is expected to be around 6700 higher than previously estimated.^[10]

It is interesting to consider the impact of this revision on previous estimates of future job needs developed using ABS experimental projections of working-age population (Taylor & Hunter 1998: 10–12). This is shown in Table 11.2. With an estimated 25 000 additional jobs required just to maintain an employment rate of 38.9 per cent, the original anticipated jobs growth of 21 400 was clearly insufficient: it led to a projected jobs deficit of 3600 against this target. The revised calculations, which take into account the changes to CDEP, estimate that by 2006 a total of 28 100 extra jobs would have been created. This leads to a job surplus against the target of maintaining the status quo and translates into an employment rate by 2006 of 40 per cent—a positive outcome, but still way below the national average.^[11] If the aim is to achieve employment equality, then the task remains enormous, with an additional 49 000 jobs still required.