Suchergebnisse

Front Cover -- About the Author -- Title Page -- Copyright -- Contents -- Preface -- Acknowledgments -- Abbreviations -- Introduction -- Part 1: The Australian welfare state in context -- 1. The development of the welfare state: History, politics and ideology -- 2. The neoliberal critique: Leading the backlash -- 3. The impact of globalisation: Driving the backlash? -- 4. Defence and reform of the welfare state: Towards greater equity -- Part 2: Australian political parties and the welfare state -- 5. Liberal Party policy: Forgotten people to mutual obligation -- 6. Labor Party policy: Wage earners' welfare state to social inclusion -- 7. The Australian Greens: Foremost supporters of the welfare state -- Part 3: Interest groups and the welfare state -- 8. The Australian Council of Social Service: Defending the welfare state -- 9. Contributors to the debate: Business, trade unions, social workers, media and consumers -- 10. Faith-based welfare and social justice: Christianity, Judaism and Islam -- 11. Social policy analysis: Young people leaving state care -- 12. The future of Australia's welfare state: Towards or away from welfare retrenchment? -- Glossary -- References -- Index.

The rise of the Australian welfare state -- The wage earners welfare state and the rediscovery of poverty -- The social democratic Whitlam labor government 1972-75 -- The anti-welfare backlash locally and internationally -- The decline of Keynesianism, the revival of classical liberalism and the alleged welfare state crisis -- The conservative liberal-national party coalition attempts to roll back the welfare state 1975-1983 -- Labor retreats from social democracy and adopts targeted welfare, the Hawke and Keating governments 1983-1996 -- The Australian neoliberal campaign to cut welfare : the role of think tanks, the media and corporate lobby groups -- The new convergence around conditional welfare -- Restoring self-reliance and the work ethic and saving taxpayers funds : the liberal-national party coalition's approach to social welfare 1983-2018 -- Labor accepts welfare conditionality 1996-2018 -- Rejecting the neoliberal consensus : welfare policy dissent and alternatives -- Case studies of the Australian council of social service (ACOSS) and the Australian greens -- Towards a participatory welfare model -- Conclusion -- Index

The historical involvement of Jews in the political Left is well known, but far less attention has been paid to the political and ideological factors which attracted Jews to the Left. After the Holocaust and the creation of Israel many lost their faith in universalistic solutions, yet lingering links between Jews and the Left continue to exist.

The disproportionate historical contribution of Jews to the political Left has been well documented. It can in fact be argued that from approximately 1848 till 1970, an informal political alliance existed between Jews and the political Left. This was never an alliance of all Jews and all Left groups. But it was an alliance between key sections of the Left and key sections of politically active Jews at various times and in various places. Both partners to this alliance were motivated by a combination of pragmatic self-interest and idealism or altruism. Philip Mendes' work is the first publication to provide a systematic historical and political overview of the relationship between Jews and the Left. It argues that Jews were drawn to the Left by a range of structural and cultural influences including poverty and class oppression, anti-Semitic violence and discrimination, Jewish ethical teachings, and Left support for Jewish rights. Nevertheless, most Jews were never sympathetic to left-wing politics, and a significant number of Jews became victims of Communist regimes. Equally, the subsequent decline of Jewish involvement in the Left can be attributed to relatively objective factors such as the Holocaust and the creation of the State of Israel which transformed Jewish dependence from international to national forces.

AbstractFor more than three decades, official and independent enquiries have documented the poor outcomes experienced by many young people transitioning from out‐of‐home care (OOHC) in Australia, known as care leavers. Yet, until 2017, most of the state and territory governments cut off financial support to these vulnerable young people at no later than 18 years of age and failed to provide them with the ongoing material and relationship assistance into early adulthood guaranteed to most of their non‐care peers. Australia was regarded internationally as a leaving care laggard. This paper examines the remarkably effective advocacy strategies used by the Home Stretch campaign, formed in 2016, to persuade all Australian jurisdictions to extend OOHC until 21 years. By the end of 2022, every state and territory had agreed to introduce some form of extended care, and Australia was recognised as a global leader in leaving care policy and programmes provision.

It has often been suggested that poor Australians were a forgotten cohort during the long period of post‐World War Two prosperity. Yet the peak non‐government welfare body, the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS), aimed from its establishment in 1956 to publicise concerns about poverty, and stimulate policy responses to relieve the disadvantage of those living in poverty. Using a range of primary sources including ACOSS annual reports, policy statements, committee meeting minutes and newsletters, this paper examines the key manifestations of ACOSS advocacy for low‐income Australians including research reports, budget submissions and public forums. It is argued that ACOSS gradually shifted from a welfarist approach based on lifting the incomes of specific vulnerable groups in isolation to a social justice approach that linked poverty to wider societal inequities.

The recent announcement of a Senate inquiry into the 'extent and nature of poverty in Australia' reminds us that poverty policy in Australia has long been a contested concept in terms of identification of causes and potential solutions. The 1972–1975 Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty led by Ronald Henderson arguably represented the high point of Australian poverty research and policy discourse. That inquiry established a framework for measuring poverty based on a link to the minimum wage, and incorporating housing costs which has informed all subsequent research.

AbstractIllicit drugs policy debates are often informed by philosophical contests between harm reduction and prohibition advocates. One particular harm reduction initiative has been the introduction of Supervised Injecting Facilities (SIFs) in many jurisdictions including two in Australia, one in New South Wales (2001) and one more recently in Victoria (2018). There is significant evidence that SIFs save lives and can also help to reduce broader social harm to communities. This paper examines the consistent opposition to SIFs by the conservative Victorian Liberal‐National Party Coalition over two decades with particular reference to the parliamentary debates of 2000 and 2018. It is concluded that the Coalition's rejection of SIFs has been based overwhelmingly on prohibitionist philosophy and associated populism which frames drug use per se as a problem to be eradicated, rather than evidence on the effectiveness of SIFs in reducing harm to drug users and the wider community.

In November 2020, the State (Labour Party) Government of Victoria in Australia announced that it would extend out-of-home care (OOHC) on a universal basis until 21 years of age starting 1 January 2021. This is an outstanding policy innovation introduced in response to the Home Stretch campaign, led by Anglicare Victoria, to urge all Australian jurisdictions to offer extended care programmes until at least 21 years. It also reflects the impact of more than two decades of advocacy by service providers, researchers, and care experienced young people (Mendes, 2019).

AbstractWelfare advocacy groups led by the Australian Council of Social Service have been campaigning for an increase in the Newstart Allowance (now renamed the JobSeeker Payment) for more than 20 years. Yet consecutive Australian governments – both Liberal‐National Coalition and Labor – have refused to raise the rate, other than the recent temporary changes introduced in response to COVID‐19. This paper argues that whilst the Coalition and Labor come from different political traditions, they share a common belief in paid work as the principal foundation of Australian social protection. Consequently, their principal concern has been to incentivise the unemployed via conditional welfare measures to engage in labour market participation, rather than boosting the welfare safety net.

Neoliberal philosophy has inspired increasing welfare conditionality in Australia whereby income support payments are tied to proscribed activities and/or good behaviour. The toughest form of conditional welfare is arguably compulsory income management (CIM) which involves the quarantining of either 50 per cent (via the Basics Card) or 80 per cent (via the Cashless Debit Card) for spending on food, rent and other essential items. The stated intent of CIM is to reduce participation in what are deemed anti-social activities by precluding spending on alcohol and drugs, cigarettes, pornography and gambling. Based mainly on official government evaluations, this paper argues that CIM unfairly restricts and controls the individual choice and agency of participants in terms of exercising their democratic rights. It also concludes ironically that instead of enhancing personal responsibility and engagement with the labour market as proposed by government, the CIM program has almost certainly increased for many participants their long-term reliance on the income support system and associated services.