Suchergebnisse

In this article the author briefly traces some features in the emergence in Australia of legislation controlling "dangerous drugs" such as opium, morphine, cocaine and heroin from 1900 to 1950. It is argued that, in common with other similar countries, the first laws prohibiting the non-medical use of drugs were enacted as a symptom of anti-Chinese racism and not out of any concern for the health of users. It is further argued that later laws, which built upon that precedent, developed not through any independent assessment of the drug problem in Australia but rather in response to pressure from the international community. Australia's unthinking acceptance of the growing U.S.-led international consensus relating to "dangerous drugs" influenced legislation, policy and attitudes to illicit drug use. The structure of drug control which emerged incorporated and promoted the fears, values and solutions of other societies without any assessment of their validity or appropriateness.

This historical overview explores the crucial and changing relationships between faith‐based organisations and governments, not only in the implementation of social services but also in the formation of social policy. Historically Australian governments have left large areas of social provision to the non‐government sector. For example, income support for the unemployed was not taken up by governments until World War II and income support for sole parents remained largely a responsibility for non‐government organisations (NGOs) until the 1970s. Prior to governments taking responsibility for income support, most of these NGOs were religious organisations surviving on donations, philanthropic support and limited government funding. It is argued that the dominant, semi‐public role of religious organisations in service delivery and social policy formation is an important but largely overlooked aspect of the Australian historical experience.

Commonwealth countries share their British social policy legacy in a variety of ways. Autstralia attempted to adopt the postwar "new Fabian" welfare state model at the very time when international economic circumstances undermined its Keynesian foundation. With Labor governments in power from 1983 to 1996, Australia diverged significantly from the neo‐liberal reform path adopted in the United Kingdom. Australian governments looked increasingly to European social democracies for alternative social policy models. In a manner anticipating the "Third Way", the tendency was towards mixing neo‐liberal economics with social democratic welfare. The Australian "Third Way" which resulted proved unstable. Current social reformers, the paper proposes, ought to revisit a neglected but characteristically British emphasis on the need for a measure of "socialization of investment" to underpin redistributive strategies.