In this paper I will address the human rights dimensions of CDEP in relation to the principles of racial non-discrimination and ‘special measures’, and also in relation to the concepts of formal and substantive equality. In 1997 a report by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission’s (HREOC’s) Race Discrimination Commissioner (RDC), The CDEP Scheme and Racial Discrimination (HREOC 1997, henceforth the HREOC Review), found that the CDEP scheme did not appear to raise any significant issue of racial discrimination, although it had some specific concerns with the administration of the scheme. Since then changes have been made in light of most of the recommendations from this review and an independent ATSIC review. There are, however, ongoing issues concerning the place of the CDEP scheme in the broader context of government obligations to address Indigenous disadvantage and ensure equitable social, economic and cultural participation. I shall focus later in the paper on the question of the extent to which a scheme such as the CDEP can operate as a special measure for meeting Indigenous employment need in what is our current climate of supposedly practical reconciliation.
The CDEP scheme has had a significant place in the history of struggle for Indigenous rights, specifically in the context of gaining access to the national social security system in the mid 1970s. Although the DSS removed specific and discriminatory references to Aboriginal people from its Act in 1966, full access to social security benefits did not occur for Indigenous people until the late 1970s, and, in some remote communities, not until the early 1980s.
The first CDEP scheme, which was started at Bamyili as an alternative to ‘sit-down’ money, developed in response to some of the problems associated with the social impact on communities of introducing cash incomes through the social security system. It should be emphasised that CDEP was an Indigenous alternative proposed by the community itself and not a ‘solution’ imposed by government (HREOC 1997: 1–5). The set of issues surrounding CDEP has resonances in current debates about Indigenous people and welfare passivity. Noel Pearson’s observations on the detrimental effects of the post 1967 era of ‘rights without responsibilities’ and ‘support without reciprocation’ on Indigenous communities have become well-known in this context. In his recent Ben Chifley Memorial Lecture, ‘The light on the hill’, he stated:
The irony of our newly won citizenship in 1967 was that after we became citizens with equal rights and the theoretical right to equal pay, we lost the meagre foothold that we had in the real economy and we became almost comprehensively dependent upon passive welfare for our livelihood. Because we find thirty years later that life in the safety net for three decades and two generations has produced a social disaster (Pearson 2000: 6–7).
The CDEP scheme emerges both as a product of, and as an alternative to, the advancement of Indigenous citizenship rights through accessing the social security system. As such, it is a form of support with reciprocation, which has led to its inevitable comparison with the ‘work-for-the-dole’ program. Its evolution as an adaptation to the employment circumstances and labour market realities of Indigenous Australians in the post 1967 ‘rights’ era has made it difficult to define. It has been variously described as an employment program; a form of income and a form of welfare benefits; a source of training or skilling; community development; a transition to employment in the mainstream labour market; a substitute provider of essential services; a source of community cohesion and cultural maintenance; an Indigenous initiative; and even a form of self determination. The definition which is most interesting for the purposes of this paper is that of CDEP as a ‘special measure’, and the extent to which the scheme qualifies for that category.