As with most Aboriginal settlements in north Australia, those in the Northern East Kimberley were established without a modern economic base, and have not subsequently acquired one, at least not in a manner that is currently sustainable beyond the provisions of the welfare state. Basically, the shift out of pastoral employment a generation ago has yet to be replaced with any firm engagement by local Aboriginal people in the emergent regional labour market which is dominated by employment in irrigated agriculture, mining, tourism, and the provision of government services.

While it is true that the overall employment rate for Aboriginal people in the East Kimberley as a whole has risen since 1981 from around 39% of all adults to 46%, net gains in employment over this period have been due entirely to the expansion of CDEP scheme activities. This is underlined by the fact that the employment rate net of CDEP—what can be described as the mainstream employment rate—actually fell from 39% to only 16%. To be fair, some of this decline reflects the substitution effect of CDEP, with many jobs that might otherwise be classified as part of the mainstream labour market (especially in the provision of local government-type services) being absorbed by the scheme.

In effect, though, the decline in the Aboriginal mainstream employment rate serves to emphasise the rise to dominance of CDEP in the regional Aboriginal labour market. In 1981, there were no CDEP schemes in the East Kimberley, and the 750 Aboriginal people recorded in employment were therefore in the mainstream labour market. By the time of the 2001 Census, there were 7 CDEP schemes in the study region with 838 participants, but only 428 Aboriginal people in the mainstream workforce. Over the same period, mainstream employment among non-Aboriginal residents of the region increased by 32%, while employment at Argyle for non-residents via fly-in fly-out also grew. Census data on industry of employment for non-Aboriginal usual residents of the region suggest that 103 (20%) of the 525 non-Aboriginal workers at the mine site in 2001 were drawn from local sources.

While the regional labour market has grown in both size and complexity, Aboriginal participation has receded. In effect, the past 30 years have witnessed a simple shift from an historical Aboriginal association with private sector employment in the form of the pastoral industry, to an association with the government sector in the form of CDEP. Beyond this, as noted, only 16% of Aboriginal adults now participate in the mainstream labour market compared to 82% of non-Aboriginal residents. This structural gap in employment, together with low levels of Aboriginal labour force participation, has significant consequences for current Aboriginal economic status, as well as for consideration of future options regarding Aboriginal participation in the regional economy.

There are three reasons for this. First of all, regardless of whatever targets might be met in respect of local employment at Argyle mine, the major regional impacts on Aboriginal people in terms of raising their overall labour force and economic status are likely to depend more on administrative and funding decisions regarding CDEP than anything else. Thus, future growth of the scheme is dependent on ever expanding resources from government, while the current welfare basis for CDEP funding leaves little scope for advancing employment beyond part-time hours with corresponding low income return.

Second, CDEP would inevitably form part of any comprehensive planning for regional economic development focused on future activities at Argyle mine. This is because much of the locally based potential workforce for the mine would in all likelihood be currently engaged by a CDEP scheme and be building necessary skills and experience via such employment. Also, many of the regional multipliers from Argyle in the form of enterprise development are likely to accrue to CDEP schemes given their predominant role in pursuing such opportunities.

Finally, the extent of reliance on CDEP for generating employment opportunities in the region places a premium on the local workforce targets of Argyle as the main opportunity in the foreseeable future for creating and hopefully sustaining at least some growth in Aboriginal mainstream employment. To date, the indications that ADM’s apparently ambitious targets might be met have been encouraging. What remains unclear, though, is whether there will be any discernable impact on regional labour force and economic indicators if such targets are met. The essential background to considering this question is one of high projected growth in the Aboriginal working age population set against future job needs and likely employment outcomes.

Regional labour force status

Rates of labour force status and estimated levels are shown for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal residents of the study region in Table 3.1. Three standard indicators of labour force status are established:

1. the employment/population ratio, representing the percentage of persons aged 15 years and over who indicated in the census that they were in employment (either in CDEP or in mainstream work) during the week prior to enumeration;

2. the unemployment rate, expressing those who indicated that they were not in employment but had actively looked for work during the four weeks prior to enumeration, as a percentage of those aged 15 years and over;

3. the labour force participation rate, representing persons in the labour force (employed and unemployed) as a percentage of those of working age.

Table 3.1. Labour force status rates^a and estimated levels for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal residents of the Northern East Kimberley, 2001

	Employed		Unemployed	Not in the labour force	Total 15+
	CDEP	Mainstream
	Levels
Aboriginal	779	428	132	1,302	2,641
Non-Aboriginal	55	3,222	83	614	3,974
	Rates
Aboriginal	29.5	16.2	5.0	49.3	100.0
Non-Aboriginal	1.4	81.3	2.1	15.5	100.0
Note: a. Excludes labour force status not stated Source: ABS 2001 Census of Population and Housing, customised tables

Overall, the size of the regional labour force (all residents employed in CDEP and mainstream work plus those unemployed) amounts to 4,699. However, with almost half (1,302) of all Aboriginal adults not in the labour force (according to the census definition), as much as 71% of the resident regional labour force is non-Aboriginal. Some of the estimated levels of Aboriginal labour force status have caveats attached. First of all, the 779 indicated by ABS statistics in CDEP employment is somewhat lower than the 838 Aboriginal participants in the scheme recorded by ATSIC at the same time as the 2001 Census. This variation may reflect the fact that the census records employment in the ‘last’ week, while CDEP work is intermittent and predominantly part-time. It may also reflect residual census undercount not accounted for by the estimation of employment levels. Also noticeable is that the census-recorded unemployment rate appears very low when set against the 600 Aboriginal clients of Centrelink who were in receipt of Newstart Allowance at the time of the 2001 Census. However, many of these are exempt from activity testing and may well have been recorded under CDEP or not in the labour force in census data. Indeed, given the administratively determined nature of much Aboriginal economic activity in the region, the boundaries between officially recorded employment, unemployment, and consequent labour force participation rates, are sufficiently blurred that all these data should be approached with some caution. They are best seen as rough estimates rather than as robust indicators.

Of particular interest for social impact planning is the distribution of employment and related labour force status by age. This is shown in Figure 3.1 for Aboriginal residents of the Northern East Kimberley with the actual rates provided in Table 3.2. The most striking feature is the fact that participation in CDEP is higher than participation in mainstream employment among youth and those of younger working age between 15 and 44 years. Only in the 45-54 age group does mainstream employment outstrip CDEP. As expected, labour force participation is positively correlated with age up to 44 years, but recedes rapidly thereafter, indicating a distinctly shortened working-life span. One prospect is that this reflects increased morbidity with advancing age, a proposition that will be tested later with hospital separations data. Thus, those most active in the labour market are generally under 45 years of age. To the extent that local recruitment for the mine workforce over the proposed extended life of Argyle mine is likely to be drawn from those aged 15-34 years in 2001, these data suggest that relatively few (an estimated 253) have experience in mainstream work, with the majority (507) in CDEP.

Figure 3.1. Labour force status rates by age group: Aboriginal residents of the Northern East Kimberley, 2001

Table 3.2.  Labour force status rates by age group: Aboriginal residents of the Northern East Kimberley, 2001

	CDEP	Mainstream	Unemployed	NILF	Total
15-24	32.1	14.3	8.4	45.2	100.0
25-34	35.3	19.7	6.7	38.3	100.0
35-44	32.5	24.0	7.0	36.5	100.0
45-54	23.1	25.5	1.2	50.2	100.0
55-64	15.8	13.8	3.9	66.5	100.0
65+	4.1	0.0	0.0	95.9	100.0
Source: ABS 2001 Census of Population and Housing, customised tables