‘Walking in two worlds’: A qualitative review of income management in Cape York

Abstract

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.

Co‐design or top‐down welfare conditionality? An analysis of the impact of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander submissions to six parliamentary inquiries into the Cashless Debit Card

“…Additionally, the Cape York site sits as a bit of an outlier given that the submissions from the Cape York Institute and the aligned Family Responsibilities Commission largely focused on defending the Cape York CYWR model, which seems to be more community controlled than paternalistic, rather than taking a stand for or against the CDC. As others have noted (Scott et al, 2021), a more discrete and nuanced assessment of the Cape York IM debate is arguably warranted.…”

“…The CYWR created an independent statutory body called the Family Responsibilities Commission which was given authority to refer individuals—where concerns exist regarding child safety, school attendance, criminal or violent behaviour, and substance abuse—to support services and/or income management programs. However, the CYWR model differs from the other CIM programs in that it was developed via significant community consultations, and income management is only applied as a last resort (Billings, 2010; Scott et al., 2021).…”

Paternalistic Welfare or Co-designed Partnerships with Local Communities? Analysis of Community Group Submissions to Six Australian Parliamentary Inquiries into the Cashless Debit Card from 2015–2020

“…CIM was initially introduced by the centre-right Liberal-National Coalition government as part of the Northern Territory Emergency Response in 2007, a Federal Government policy intervention designed to address disproportionate levels of violence and social disadvantage in Indigenous communities and then extended by the succeeding centre-left Labor government to a number of new locations across Australia (Mendes, 2018(Mendes, , 2019). An additional type of CIM known as the Cape York Welfare Reform (CYWR) initiative was also introduced in partnership with Indigenous community leaders in the Cape York Region of Queensland (Scott et al, 2021).…”