Although CDEP needs critiquing, this tendentious article isn't the way to do it. Ms Hudson pinpoints some issues needing exposure, but also provides wrong information &/or misleading implications.

CDEP (originally standing for the CDE Program, not "Projects"), was not "introduced to replace unemployment benefits for Indigenous Australians": it was introduced to replace UB for that small sector of Aboriginal people living in remote communities which had no labour markets.

Nor was it introduced "to provide a transition to real work". It was intended to be a "work program" in places unlikely ever to provide other jobs.

DAA allowed CDEP to be extended (in the mid to late eighties) when it became obvious that other (DEIR, DEET & ADC) strategies were largely failing to improve workforce access for people from most urban and rural Aboriginal communities.

As for the contention that CDEP "pay on top of welfare payments isn't negligible either. Recent reports ... highlighted the fact that women on welfare can receive incomes in excess of $40,000 a year. Add CDEP to the mix and you have annual income levels of about $52,000".

This is hokum. The number of people taking advantage of CDEP in this way is so small as to be almost negligible. Those who do it shouldn't be doing so, but people are not taking advantage of CDEP in this way in most remote CDEP communities .

Similarly, Ms Hudson's assertion that "Even in remote areas, most Indigenous people are within commuting distance of work in retail, tourism, agriculture and mining" is ignorant nonsense. Some are, but definitely not "most". She should be challenged to substantiate this wild and silly claim. There are some (probably hundreds) who are within "commuting distance" of these jobs (and failing to take advantage of these possibilities), but by the same token there are many thousands of people in remote regions who are not living within "commuting distance" of such labour markets.

If the Centre for Independent Studies persists with allowing such uninformed stuff to be published under its moniker, then it should seriously consider renaming itself the Centre for Propaganda Studies.

CDEP is largely criticised by Aboriginal people also. While generalisations are always problematic, in general CDEP has failed to provide either employment or development. Its true that real economies don't exist in some of these places, but that needs a real fix, not trapping people in welfare by any name.

The Rudd Government itself has admitted its a failed program and promised reform - yet reinstated the unreformed program. Its not true there was no replacement, there is Work for the Dole which applies to ALL participants with activity requirements, not just the selct few in CDEP. Problem is, they simultaneously watered down work for the dole. The reform will mean more training, not more work, so they have got themselves in a real policy bind

The real problem is that people miss the principle reason that the previous Government abolished CDEP in the NT communities. While CDEP effectively operates as 'welfare' and sit down money, in legal terms it is wages and therefore cannot be income managed (or quarantined) as other welfare can. Cutting discretionary cash is an important part of cutting down grog and other substance abuse. This was why a number of indigenous people, including the ALP's Alison Anderson, criticised restoration of CDEP and noted that it made more idel money available for grog and the associated dysfunctions.

Keeping a failed program, especially when it feeds some of the substance issues - albeit indirectly - is a sign of very poor governance. They did it for one reason, because they hastily promised to do so when, pre election, they were trying to ingratiate themselves to the Aboriginal lobby. Labor supported income management and the reasons behind it - but the CDEP decision flies in the fase of commitment to the intervention flop.

CDEP is the government's method of getting the indigenous people off the unemployment roll so the unemployment rates are lower. It's the dole by another name and is given out using the same methodology as the dole - the CDEP office is a branch office of Centerlink.

All the so called examples quoted here are fantasy. If you are employed you are not entitled to the dole, similarly with CDEP.

I didn't bother reading the previous posts of this thread, I just saw CDEP & I knew I had to add my two bob worth. My whole working life in the past 30 years has been in indigenous communities & I witnessed the transformation from when everyone was working at something to where hardly anyone is doing anything. CdEP compounded the problem.
CDEP was dreamed up by ignorant academic advisors & endorsed by equally ignorant bureaucrats. I was told it was Bob Katter who first promoted the idea & Labor jumped at it without thinking. We now have a generation of communities who were denied the opportunity to seek & find their way in life. So, now these people have absolutely no sense of direction or worth etc. & they're left at the mercy of more academic & bureaucratic experiments. Compliments of Labor. To cover up the insurmountable stuff-up a selected few indigenous have been put on pedestals for show. Everyone's raving on about the appalling state of health & education etc. Well, where are all those high achievers among the communities ? Labor's solution of offering people a two week TAFE course is an obvious abysmal failure. Indigenous or otherwise, people need a sense of worth & I'm afraid the academic "expert" advisors just don't cut it.

I actually gave some serious thought to writing a response that would utilise hard data such as work force participation, a scan of real economies in remote communities, an audit of (the lack) of government infrastructure, work to welfare transition and of course the overall historical analysis of how and why these remote gulags (everyone calls “ Aboriginal communities”) cam about.

They each have their own unique but fundamentally familiar story. (even the one I was born on).

But then I though why bother Paul, I won't get a response from the author of this article, I'll only have Right Wing Laborites like to you engage with.

YAWN! I'd rather watch paint dry.

So which one are you individual,
1. Missionary
2. Mercenary
3. Misfit

Or perhaps one those people not ideologically inclined but who did well (financially) living off Aboriginal poverty?