Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Fifty years of ACOSS

By Philip Mendes - posted Thursday, 28 December 2006


On balance, ACOSS appears to have traditionally enjoyed closer relations with the Labor Party, rather than with the Liberal-National Coalition, due to the greater symmetry of their ideological positions. But relationships with governments of both political sides have always involved a mixture of co-operation and criticism.

ACOSS is both proactive and reactive. ACOSS is proactive in that it independently develops and promotes policy ideas based on the experiences, priorities and concerns of its constituency and membership as a means of raising public awareness and influencing policy change. And ACOSS is reactive in terms of responding to proposals by government, political parties, the media, and other key players in the policy making process.

In its relations with government, ACOSS operates as an “insider” lobbying group concerned to retain an ongoing consultative status. This means it typically engages in certain types of accepted lobbying activities. ACOSS is not able to employ the economic sanctions (for example, strike action or disinvestment) open to producer groups such as business and unions. This means that ACOSS is likely to be successful only when its agenda does not clash fundamentally with that of the government.

Advertisement

ACOSS also has a limited capacity to mobilise its own membership behind specific policy positions given the voluntaristic nature of their membership structure. For example, ACOSS could in principle recommend that its membership initiate a confrontational strategy such as a welfare industry strike in a sensitive area such as the Jobs Network. However, in practice, it is unlikely that ACOSS would attempt to do so given that ACOSS members would be under no obligation to follow such a directive.

Consequently, ACOSS primarily uses co-operation and persuasion strategies, rather than contest strategies, to promote change. ACOSS generally adheres to a number of key strategies identified as crucial for lobbying success. These include the provision of well-researched case studies, professional expertise, speaking with a united and representative voice, topicality and timing in its interventions, moderate and considered recommendations, and an emphasis on broader national concerns rather than narrow self-interest.

ACOSS uses a range of lobbying activities including submissions to, and meetings with, leading public servants and government ministers, presentations to parliamentary inquiries and hearings, meetings with internal party policy committees, addresses to public forums, and occasionally public pressure campaigns.

ACOSS also maintains extensive contact with the media since media coverage can be crucial in influencing government policy outcomes, and engages in alliances with other important lobby groups such as trade unions, the churches, environmental groups, and sometimes the business sector. ACOSS also aims to influence general public opinion.

ACOSS has arguably been an effective lobby group over time, particularly given the dominant neo-liberal agenda of the last 20 years. ACOSS appears to have been successful in defending the fundamental structures of the welfare state from attack, and in protecting its low income constituency from potentially greater hardship and distress. However, it seems to have had only minimal success in convincing governments to introduce measures that would lead to greater social or economic equity.

ACOSS relies on an annual government grant for about 45 per cent of its funding. Other major contributions to ACOSS’ current income of just more than $1 million come from membership fees and donations annual congress income, project management and fees for services, and publications income.

Advertisement

The advantage of continued government funding is that it facilitates relative financial certainty. However, financial reliance on government may potentially compromise ACOSS’ independence, and prevent it from speaking out against government policies. In addition, ACOSS’ relatively minimal resources limit its lobbying capacity compared to other better funded lobby groups representing business and trade unions. ACOSS has long recognised the danger of its limited funding base, and is progressively seeking to diversify and expand its sources of income.

ACOSS has existed as a unique body for 50 years, representing both welfare providers and welfare consumers.

Its current priorities are arguably threefold: to reframe social problems in language that encourages public opinion to sympathise with allegedly less “deserving” disadvantaged groups such as the unemployed, sole parents and indigenous Australians; to be pro-active in articulating progressive alternatives to the dominant economic rationalist agenda; and to form new alliances from the local to the regional to the global that provide effective political structures for implementing such alternatives.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

This is an edited extract from his new book Inside the Welfare Lobby: A History of ACOSS published by Sussex Academic Press. The book was discussed by a panel of current and former ACOSS Presidents at the 50th Anniversary ACOSS Congress in Sydney on November 24, 2006.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

3 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Associate Professor Philip Mendes is the Director of the Social Inclusion and Social Policy Research Unit in the Department of Social Work at Monash University and is the co-author with Nick Dyrenfurth of Boycotting Israel is Wrong (New South Press), and the author of a chapter on The Australian Greens and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict in the forthcoming Australia and Israel (Sussex Academic Press). Philip.Mendes@monash.edu

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Philip Mendes

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Philip Mendes
Article Tools
Comment 3 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy