Search

The Cape York Welfare Reform (CYWR) initiative aims to reduce ‘passive dependence’ on welfare and restore ‘positive social norms’ to revitalise cultural and social networks and support economic engagement in Indigenous communities in the Cape York Region of Australia. Critics of the initiative and, in particular, its income management (IM) policies have associated it with a broader neoliberal reform agenda that delineates social ‘problems’ from their historical and structural context. This paper discusses key qualitative findings from a strategic review of CYWR, paying particular attention to the ways in which Cape York IM (CYIM) straddles both Indigenous and settler social norms, while perpetuating neoliberal conceptualisations of welfare ‘dependency’. We situate these findings within the existing literature on Australia's other IM models and also consider them in relation to subsequent government responses to the review and associated policies. We argue that CYIM represents a unique initiative, the subtle nuances of which have been largely ignored or misunderstood by critics. Further, we conclude that any extension or revision of this initiative should be considered with respect to deep and wide‐ranging consultation of the Indigenous communities subject to CYWR. However, such consultation has not been the standard practice in Australian contexts.

Implemented in 2008, the Cape York Welfare Reform (CYWR) initiative aims to address passive dependence on welfare and commit people in the communities of Aurukun, Coen, Hope Vale, and Mossman Gorge to resume primary responsibility for the wellbeing of their families and their communities. This review examines one aspect of CYWR—income management (IM). Under the Cape York IM (CYIM) model, IM is administered by the Department of Human Services based on the guidance and decisions of the Family Responsibilities Commission (FRC). Ultimately, only a relatively small proportion of FRC clients have ever been subject to a CYIM order. At its peak in 2008– 2009 the percentage of FRC clients placed on a CYIM order was 20.7%, a figure which has declined annually to the 2017- 2018 figure of 7.7%. This review seeks to understand the impact of CYIM over the past ten years (2008 –2018) in the original CYWR communities (i.e. excluding Doomadgee 1 ), drawing on available qualitative and quantitative data (e.g. qualitative accounts in the existing literature, FRC reports and FRC client data). Cape York communities are looking to make a decision about evolving from CYWR towards new arrangements based on the empowerment/development model. There is an expectation from communities that this review will inform a decision about the future of welfare quarantining in Cape York and what role the current CYIM approach can/should have in any future models. Different communities have different needs and may come to different conclusions. CYIM is unique and, thus, conclusions arising from this review may not be able to be transferred to IM in other contexts. In fact, many of the conclusions depend on the unique IM delivery system that is peculiar to the CYIM model, rather than simply IM alone.

A title registration. Access to justice is defined as the ability of both victims and accused to seek and obtain redress through the formal or informal legal system in an accessible, affordable, timely and just manner, regardless of sex, age, socio-economic status, mental or physical capacity, or ethnicity.