These changes were not driven by the Government alone. The Indigenous leadership network, which had worked together closely in the early 1990s, was no longer of one voice. Some key Indigenous individuals were actively promoting many of these policy changes, to both the Coalition Government and the Labor Party, then in Opposition. The most prominent was Noel Pearson. He vigorously promoted a change to perverse economic incentives, arguing passionately that welfare was killing his people in Cape York. He argued that social norms had broken down, and that nothing less than radical welfare reform was required to ensure that Aboriginal people regained their dignity, took responsibility for their lives and those of the next generation, and indeed survived as a people (Pearson 2000, 2005b). Drawing on ideas from development economist Amartya Sen (1999), Pearson was concerned about people’s capability to be self-determining and to make choices through liberation from alcohol dependence, better education, exposure to the ‘mainstream’, and through economic development of their lands (Pearson 2000, 2005b).^[5] Pearson argued for Indigenous mobility and the education necessary to enable young people to move for work. He also urged reform of the Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) program which, combined with other family payments, he saw as providing a disincentive to people entering the so-called ‘real economy’, accessing the formal job market or generating businesses (Pearson 2005a, 2006).

Pearson nevertheless remained a supporter of Aboriginal native title, of collective ownership of land and the rights of Indigenous people, although he downplayed these issues. He also argued for engagement with Aboriginal organisations and leaders. His argument was essentially about re-balancing collective rights with individual responsibilities, and he asserted that social dysfunction was a higher priority to address than land rights issues (Cape York Institute (CYI) 2007; Pearson 2007a, 2007b). Pearson’s views about Indigenous rights as first peoples, the value of Indigenous cultural identity and the role of Indigenous organisations, clearly differed from Government’s, but his other ideas were sufficiently close to theirs for him to gain considerable Government support for his initiatives. He was appointed an Adviser on Welfare Reform to the Prime Minister, and the ‘Cape York Agenda’ began to dominate national policy discourse. His approach was not without its critics (Behrendt 2007; Calma 2007; Hart, Herbert and Tripcony 2004; Education and Health Standing Committee (EHSC) 2007a), and Government adopted it selectively, ignoring the Indigenous rights, cultural identity and Indigenous organisational leadership aspects.

Other Indigenous individuals, including Warren Mundine, a senior figure in the Australian Labor Party, accepted the Coalition Government’s invitation to join a new National Indigenous Council (NIC) to advise the Government after ATSIC’s abolition in 2004.^[6] Chaired by Western Australian magistrate Sue Gordon, this advisory council supported and gave some legitimacy to the Government’s new approach (NIC 2006). Thus, the Government drew on the support of selected Indigenous people who shared its view of the problem. Other Indigenous leaders were marginalised from the national debate, their focus on rights-based approaches characterised as inappropriate in light of the growing sense of past policy failure and current crisis.

A number of specific policy changes highlight some of the key issues under contention. These included the debate about outstations (or ‘homelands’ communities), as well as the abolition or reform of CDEP and the Community Housing and Infrastructure Program (CHIP).