I now turn to another source of review and reshaping of the CDEP scheme altogether, the so-called Spicer Review (Spicer 1997). This review grew out of a freeze placed on the expansion of the CDEP scheme by the incoming Howard government in 1996. Previously, under Labor, CDEP had been able to expand by between 1200 and 1800 places per year. After a year of the Howard government’s freeze, ATSIC sought to raise anew the issue of expansion and was told that, before expansion would be even contemplated, there would have to be an ‘independent’ review of the CDEP scheme. Hence the creation of the Spicer Review in the second half of 1997.

The Spicer Review began with the observation that up to one-third of CDEP participants did not then work, and that for them the scheme was no more than an alternative form of income support (Spicer 1997: 2). This ‘sit-down money’ element of CDEP was seen as both a wasted work resource and as a poor substitute for social security income support. These people would often be better off, financially, if they were clients of the social security system and, it was suggested, the CDEP scheme would also be better off, and more work-focused, without them. This push towards a more work-focused CDEP scheme was also seen as putting off the need for expansion since, for a couple of years at least, CDEP could supposedly expand internally, by offloading those on sit-down money onto the social security system and by increasing the proportion of participants who were working.

This set of reforms was essentially pursued by ATSIC once it became clear that the Howard government was not going to accept much expansion of CDEP. ATSIC was, in many ways, pushing CDEP away from the social security system. Those on CDEP who looked like social security recipients were being encouraged off, while those who stayed on CDEP were being encouraged to be more work-focused, possibly undertaking training and even being encouraged to move beyond the scheme into general, or mainstream employment.