The social inclusion policy agenda in Australia: A case of old wine, new bottles?

The election of an Australian Labor Government in Australia in 2007 saw ‘social inclusion’ emerge as the official and overarching social policy agenda. Being ‘included’ was subsequently defined by the ALP Government as being able to ‘have the resources, opportunities and capabilities needed to learn, work, engage and have a voice’. Various researchers in Australia demonstrated an interest in social inclusion, as it enabled them to construct a multi-dimensional framework for measuring disadvantage. This research program resulted in various forms of statistical modelling based on some agreement about what it means to be included in society. The multi-dimensional approach taken by academic researchers, however, did not necessarily translate to a new model of social policy development or implementation. We argue that, similar to the experience of the UK, Australia’s social inclusion policy agenda was for the most part narrowly and individually defined by politicians and policy makers, particularly in terms of equating being employed with being included. We conclude with discussion about the need to strengthen the social inclusion framework by adopting an understanding of social inequality and social justice that is more relational and less categorical.

Mapping social enterprise in Australia : conceptual debates and their operational implications

In the last ten years, there has been growing interest in social enterprise by governments, the not for profit sector and philanthropy in Australia The drivers of this interest have been variously understood to be: increasing demands for innovative responses to social and environmental problems; pressures on non-profit organisations to diversify their income sources; and increasing emphases by government on the role of civil society actors in partnering around social policy agendas. Whatever its genesis, very little is known about the scale and scope of the emerging social enterprise sector. In order to research the scope of the sector, an important first step involves understanding just what social enterprise is, and how it may be operationalised. This paper presents the findings from the first stage of a national research project conducted by the authors in conjunction with a new social enterprise development company. The purpose of the project was to provide a comprehensive snapshot of the social enterprise sector in Australia. In this paper, we focus on the definitional debates arising from our workshop discussions, what these mean for understanding contemporary discourses of social enterprise, and their implications for research, policy and practice.

Synergies and goal conflicts for climate change policy and spatial planning

The purpose of this paper is to identify goal conflicts – both actual and potential – between climate and social policies in government strategies in response to the growing significance of climate change as a socioecological issue (IPCC 2007). Both social and climate policies are political responses to long-term societal trends related to capitalist development, industrialisation, and urbanisation (Koch, 2012). Both modify these processes through regulation, fiscal transfers and other measures, thereby affecting conditions for the other. This means that there are fields of tensions and synergies between social policy and climate change policy. Exploring these tensions and synergies is an increasingly important task for navigating genuinely sustainable development. Gough et al (2008) highlight three potential synergies between social and climate change policies: First, income redistribution – a traditional concern of social policy – can facilitate use of and enhance efficiency of carbon pricing. A second area of synergy is housing, transport, urban policies and community development, which all have potential to crucially contribute towards reducing carbon emissions. Finally, climate change mitigation will require substantial and rapid shifts in producer and consumer behaviour. Land use planning policy is a critical bridge between climate change and social policy that provides a means to explore the tensions and synergies that are evolving within this context. This paper will focus on spatial planning as an opportunity to develop strategies to adapt to climate change, and reviews the challenges of such change. Land use and spatial planning involve the allocation of land and the design and control of spatial patterns. Spatial planning is identified as being one of the most effective means of adapting settlements in response to climate change (Hurlimann and March, 2012). It provides the instrumental framework for adaptation (Meyer, et al., 2010) and operates as both a mechanism to achieve adaptation and a forum to negotiate priorities surrounding adaptation (Davoudi, et al., 2009). The acknowledged role of spatial planning in adaptation however has not translated into comparably significant consideration in planning literature (Davoudi, et al., 2009; Hurlimann and March, 2012). The discourse on adaptation specifically through spatial planning is described as ‘missing’ and ‘subordinate’ in national adaptation plans (Greiving and Fleischhauer, 2012),‘underrepresented’ (Roggema, et al., 2012)and ‘limited and disparate’ in planning literature (Davoudi, et al., 2009). Hurlimann and March (2012) suggest this may be due to limited experiences of adaptation in developed nations while Roggema et al. (2012) and Crane and Landis (2010) suggest it is because climate change is a wicked problem involving an unfamiliar problem, various frames of understanding and uncertain solutions. The potential for goal conflicts within this policy forum seem to outweigh the synergies. Yet, spatial planning will be a critical policy tool in the future to both protect and adapt communities to climate change.

Surveillance Town: Social inclusion-exclusion through surveillance, ‘the dignity of work’ and income management

This paper discusses the situation of welfare claimants, constructed as faulty citizens and flawed welfare subjects at the receiving end of complex and multi-layered, private and public, forms of monitoring and surveillance aimed at securing socially responsible, consuming and compliant behaviours. In Australia as in many other western countries, the rise of neoliberal economic regimes with their harsh and often repressive treatment of welfare claimants operates in tandem with a growing arsenal of CCTV and assorted urban governance measures (Monahan 2008, Maki 2011). The capacity for all forms of surveillance to intensify social inequalities through the lens of CCTV and other modes and methods of electronic monitoring is amply demonstrated in the surveillance studies literature, raising fundamental questions around issues of social justice, equity and the expenditure of societal resources (Norris and Armstrong 1999, Lyon 1994, 2001, Loader 1996).

Corporatizing the 'intellectual machinery' of government : the case of educational policy in Australia

This article analyses what it describes as the corporatization of the ‘intellectual machinery’ of government: the theories, knowledges, research and ‘know how’ utilized by political authorities to render the world thinkable, programmable and subject to intervention. Through an analysis of two key nodal points in national policy on teacher professional standards in Australia over the last decade, the article discloses a shift in the relation between expertise and politics. This is manifested, it is argued, in an increased reliance by policy authorities on corporatized forms of research produced by national and international private consulting firms, Think Tanks, and ‘policy entrepreneurs’ and a concomitant decrease in their reliance on free research produced largely by academics in institutions of higher education. The article seeks to account for this shift in terms of the ‘advanced liberal’ formula for rule which now characterizes government in contemporary Western polities.

Countering disablism: An alternative universal income support system based on egalitarianism

The long-term vision of economic security and social participation for people with a disability held by disability activists and policy-makers has not been realised on a global scale. This is despite the implementation of various poverty alleviation initiatives by international and national governments. Indeed within advanced Western liberal democracies, the inequalities and poverty gaps have widened rather than closed. This article is based on findings from a historical-comparative policy and discourse analysis of disability income support system in Australia and the Basic Income model. The findings suggest that a model such as Basic Income, grounded in principles of social citizenship, goes some way to maintaining an adequate level of subsistence for people with a disability. The article concludes by presenting some challenges and a commitment to transforming income support policy.

Conceptualising value creation for social change management

Australian and international governments are increasingly adopting social marketing as a social change management tool to deal with complex social problems. Government decision makers typically need to balance the use of business models and management theories whilst maintaining the integrity of government policy. In taking this approach, decision makers experience management tensions between a social mission to equitably deliver social services and the accountability and affordability of providing quality social and health services to citizens. This is a significant challenge as the nature of the ‘social product’ in government is often more service-oriented than goods-based. In this paper the authors examine value creation in government social marketing services. The contribution of this paper is a value creation process model, which considers the nature of governments to create social good. This is particularly important for governments where consumers still expect value and quality in the service delivered, despite that offering being ‘free’.

Youth, Sport and the Social Inclusion Agenda

The purpose of this paper is to assess aspects of the British Government's attempts to use sporting participation as a vehicle to re-integrate socially disadvantaged, excluded and 'at-risk' youth into mainstream society. A number of organisations, policy-makers, commentators, and practitioners with a stake in the 'sport and social inclusion agenda' were interviewed. General agreement was found on a number of points: that the field was overly crowded with policies, programmes and initiatives; that the field worked in a 'bottom-up' way, with the most significant factor determining success being effective local workers with good networks and cultural access; that the dichotomising rhetoric of inclusion/exclusion was counter-productive; that the notion of the 'at-risk youth' was problematic and unhelpful; and that they all now dealt with a marketplace, where 'clients' had to be enrolled in their own reformation. There was also disagreement on a number of points: that policy acts as a relatively accurate template for practice, as opposed to the argument that it was simply regarded as a cluster of suggestions for practice; that policy was exceptionally piecemeal in its formulation and application, as opposed to regarding policy as necessarily targeted and dispersed; and that the inclusion agenda was largely politically driven and transitory, as opposed to the optimistic view that it had become ingrained in local practice. Finally, the paper examines some issues that are the most likely points of contribution by researchers in the area: that more research needs to be done on the processes of identity formation associated with participation in sport; that more effective programme evaluation needs to be done for such forms of governmental intervention to work properly; and that the relationship between different kinds of physical activity and social and personal change needs to be more thoroughly theorised.

Social innovation to solve homelessness : wicked solutions for wicked problems

Homelessness is a complex problem that manifests in all societies. This intractable and ‘wicked’ issue resists single-agency solutions and its resolution and requires a large, on-going investment of financial and professional resources that few organisations can sustain. This paper adopts a social innovation framework to examine government and community sector responses to homelessness. While recent evaluations and policy prescriptions have suggested better integrated and more co-ordinated service delivery models for addressing homelessness, there is little understanding of the innovation framework in which alternative service system paradigms emerge. A framework that identifies/distils and explains different innovation levels is put forward. The framework highlights that while government may lead strategic level innovations, community organisations are active in developing innovation at the service and client level. Moreover, community organisations may be unaware of the innovative capacity that resides in their creative responses to resolving social crisis and marginalisation through being without shelter.

Preventing injuries on a state-wide basis : researchers and parliamentary committees are partners in turning injury prevention and safety research into practice and policy

Context: Parliamentary committees established in Westminster parliaments, such as Queensland, provide a cross-party structure that enables them to recommend policy and legislative changes that may otherwise be difficult for one party to recommend. The overall parliamentary committee process tends to be more cooperative and less adversarial than the main chamber of parliament and, as a result, this process permits parliamentary committees to make recommendations more on the available research evidence and less on political or party considerations. Objectives: This paper considers the contributions that parliamentary committees in Queensland have made in the past in the areas of road safety, drug use as well as organ and tissue donation. The paper also discusses the importance of researchers actively engaging with parliamentary committees to ensure the best evidence based policy outcomes. Key messages: In the past, parliamentary committees have successfully facilitated important safety changes with many committee recommendations based on research results. In order to maximise the benefits of the parliamentary committee process it is essential that researchers inform committees about their work and become key stakeholders in the inquiry process. Researchers can keep committees informed by making submissions to their inquiries, responding to requests for information and appearing as witnesses at public hearings. Researchers should emphasise the key findings and implications of their research as well as considering the jurisdictional implications and political consequences. It is important that researchers understand the differences between lobbying and providing informed recommendations when interacting with committees. Discussion and conclusions: Parliamentary committees in Queensland have successfully assisted in the introduction of evidence based policy and legislation. In order to present best practice recommendations, committees rely on the evidence presented to them including the results of researchers. Actively engaging with parliamentary committees will help researchers to turn their results into practice with a corresponding decrease in injuries and fatalities. Developing an understanding of parliamentary committees, and the typical inquiry process used by these committees, will help researchers to present their research results in a manner that will encourage the adoption of their ideas by parliamentary committees, the presentation of these results as recommendations within the report and the subsequent enactment of the committee’s recommendations by the government.

Does the protection of vulnerable children require a system of mandatory reporting of abuse and neglect? [An issues paper for the New Zealand Government Green Paper for vulnerable children]

In this Issues Paper, I raise some key points relevant for any government which is considering its child protection and family welfare policy. In particular, I will raise questions about whether a form of legislative reporting duty is required, and if so, what consequences this has for child protection. The context of child maltreatment - and each form of maltreatment: physical abuse, sexual abuse, psychological or emotional abuse, and neglect - is extremely complex, and the overarching question of how to deal with these phenomena involve challenging normative, economic and practical questions. There are no easy or perfect solutions. Nor, often, is there the amount and quality of evidence available on which public policy approaches should be devised. However, from the best evidence about the history of this context, from research conducted in this field, and from the best evidence available about the nature, incidence and effects of different subtypes of maltreatment, some observations can be made which may help to inform deliberations. I outline 10 key issues related to mandatory reporting legislation while being mindful of the New Zealand context. My view, based on both research evidence and a concern to protect and promote children’s interests, and society’s interests, is that reporting laws in some form are necessary and can contribute substantially to child protection and enhancing family and community health and wellbeing. However, they are only one necessary part of a sound child protection system, being a method of tertiary and secondary prevention, and primary prevention efforts must also be prioritised. Moreover, it is essential that if a legislative reporting duty is enacted, it must be designed carefully and implemented soundly, and it must be integrated within a properly resourced child protection and family welfare system.

Does the social inclusion discourse add value?

The election of a national Labor Government in 2007 saw ‘social inclusion’ emerge as Australia’s overarching social policy agenda. Being ‘included’ has since been defined as being able to ‘have the resources, opportunities and capabilities needed to learn, work, engage and have a voice’. Various researchers have adopted the social inclusion concept to construct a multi-dimensional framework for measuring disadvantage, beyond poverty alleviation. This research program has enabled various forms of statistical modelling based on some agreement about what it means to be ‘included’ in society. At the same time it is acknowledged that social inclusion remains open and contestable and can be used in the name of both progressive and more punitive programs and policies. This ambiguity raises questions about whether the social inclusion framework, as it is presently defined, has the potential to be a progressive and transformative discourse. In this paper we examine whether the Australian social inclusion agenda has the capacity to address social inequality in a meaningful way, concluding with a discussion about the need to understand social inequality and social disadvantage in relational terms.

Justice and social inclusion policies

Since 2008 the social policy of Australia’s Labor government (in office since 2007) has been framed by a commitment to ‘social inclusion’. In this respect Australia belatedly aligned itself with policy imaginaries already widely, if variably, adopted in Europe (Atkinson & Davoudi 2000; Levitas et al 2007; Buckmaster & Thomas 2009). This framework has been self-consciously identified as what Labor governments are equipped to do. Framed by the post-2007 global financial crisis and agreeing with claims that ‘excessive greed’ and irresponsibility on the part of financial markets sponsored that calamity, the Labor government vigorously promoted its ‘social democratic’ credentials. Former Prime Minister Rudd has explained this meant that Australia would no longer adopt a neo-liberal orientation promoting unrestrained capitalism (Rudd 2009).