Policy history

Although the CDEP scheme grew out of the extension of social security entitlements to Indigenous Australians, it was not, in the late 1970s and the 1980s, in any way formally linked to the social security system. The scheme was not recognised by or referred to in the social security legislation and it was administered, at Commonwealth level, almost entirely by the Indigenous affairs portfolio with little or no input from the social security portfolio. The link between the CDEP scheme and social security entitlement was simply an informal, notional financial offset. The CDEP scheme was outside the social security system, and participants in the scheme were essentially treated simply as low-income wage earners.

This changed somewhat in 1991 when a clause was introduced to the social security legislation which forbade participants in ‘Commonwealth funded employment programs’ from qualifying for unemployment payments—or New Start Allowance as it then became. CDEP was not mentioned specifically by name, but the intent of the reference to ‘Commonwealth funded employment programs’ was clear: CDEP participants would not under any circumstance be entitled to Newstart allowance because they were seen as already receiving another form of Commonwealth government income support.

This quite specific legislative provision opened up a new line of criticism of the CDEP scheme, which manifested itself in complaints to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) from CDEP scheme participants. These complaints, paraphrasing the voice of CDEP participants, were of roughly the following form:

Seeing the social security legislation recognises us, CDEP participants, as Commonwealth income support recipients for the purposes of disqualifying us from New Start Allowance entitlement, why doesn’t it also recognise us as income support recipients for the purposes of qualifying for such social security entitlements as rent assistance, health care cards and tax rebates available to beneficiaries, and for the further fringe benefits that can flow from income support recipient status such as concessional charges for various state and local government and privately provided services?