Lessons from a basic income programme for Indigenous Australians

Abstract

This article examines the importance of basic income in supporting development and economic security in remote Australian Indigenous communities. Specifically we draw on the case of the Community Development Employment Programme (CDEP) and examine its significant basic income features: it provided economic security, flexible definitions of work, community control and a means to establish community development initiatives. We find that CDEP suited the economic and cultural circumstances of remote-living Aboriginal people whose livelihoods depend on a hybrid form of economy inclusive of customary (non-market) practices rather than market capitalism. We then trace shifts in Indigenous policy in recent times which saw the dismantling of CDEP in the name of ‘real’ employment, and we examine the consequences of this for Aboriginal people. We end by proposing the reinstatement of a more complete basic income scheme, initially for people in remote Indigenous communities in Australia who are in deepest poverty.

View correction statement:

Erratum

Notes

1. We use the term ‘Indigenous’ to refer to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

2. A helpful distinction between ‘old’ and ‘new’ or neo-paternalism can be found in Dee (2013) where neo-paternalism is the commitment to secure behavioural change through conditionality placed on any form of state assistance.

3. In the absence of a National Bill of Rights, the Racial Discrimination Act of 1975 was passed by the Australian Parliament to make racial discrimination unlawful in Australia.

4. For example, the latest report from the Productivity Commission (2015) to the Council of Australian Governments (National Indigenous Reform Agreement Performance Assessment 2013–2014) shows that the employment gap between Indigenous and other Australians is widening, and unlikely to close in the foreseeable future. The Productivity Commission (2015) shows a 38 percentage point disparity in employment outcomes between Indigenous and other Australians in remote Australia, and provides a compelling case that since 2012–2013 this situation might have worsened.

5. The ‘Closing the Gap’ targets are: (1) Halve the gap in mortality rates for Indigenous children under five within a decade (by 2018); (2) 95% of all Indigenous four-year-olds to be enroled in early childhood education (by 2025); (3) Close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous school attendance within five years (by 2018); (4) Halve the gap for Indigenous children in reading, writing and numeracy achievements within a decade (by 2018); (5) Halve the gap for Indigenous Australians aged 20–24 years in Year 12 attainment or equivalent attainment rates (by 2020); (6) Halve the gap in employment outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians within a decade (by 2018); and (7) Close the gap in life expectancy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians within a generation (by 2031) (Commonwealth of Australia, 2016).

6. CDEP was originally referred to as the ‘Community Development Employment Projects’ scheme.

7. See also the Prime Minister’s 2016 Closing the Gap Report (Commonwealth of Australia, 2016) and the National Indigenous Reform Agreement: Performance Assessment 2013–2014 (Productivity Commission, 2015).

8. For example, the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) identifies not only economic, political and social rights, but also the self-determining right to cultural development. In 2007 the Australian government refused to ratify UNDRIP, but which it subsequently ‘adopted’ in 2009 highlighting that its articles are not binding on domestic law.

9. Customary (non-market) activities such as art and hunting can also be hybrid economic activities where Indigenous peoples sell meat or art in the market economy for additional cash (Altman & Nieuwenhuysen, 1979).

10. As a general rule, if people were paid, it was mostly in-kind, with small amounts of cash given as pocket money (Parliament of Australia, 2006).

11. At the same time the status quo of below-award wages was not just morally challenged, but also legally indefensible after the pastoral award decision by the Industrial Relations Commission in 1966 (Skyring, 2012). In 1974, award wages were finally introduced at what were increasingly referred to as townships or discrete Indigenous communities.

12. The two terms ‘outstations’ and ‘homelands’ can be used interchangeably and merely reflect different regional preferences.

13. Scholars have pointed to the similarity of the CDP title to CDEP, suggesting it was an attempt of the government to stimulate eagerness in the uptake of participants to CDP. In some remote areas, the similarity in names did cause some initial excitement in participants who thought the old CDEP had been bought back in (see Jordan, 2016c).

14. For a detailed synopsis of the demise of CDEP and analysis of contemporary work-for-the-dole programmes, see Jordan (2016a).

15. While precise information on the cost of CDP is impossible to obtain from the government, its administration by both paid service providers and Commonwealth government agencies results in duplication which was not evident with CDEP.