The earliest phases of the Social Economy in Australia were grounded in the establishment of charitable institutions. The history of contemporary white Australia began in the early nineteenth century with organisations established by Governments to provide for the poor, disabled, the aged and the infirm (many of whom had been or were convicts largely of English origin but also Irish who had left their “motherland” to seek a better life. Hence it was Government (and this meant initially the Government of New South Wales) that engaged social issues through charitable organisations and structures. What is evident in this period was the number of faith enterprises established by religious orders. This occurred especially in unfunded schooling through Irish institutions as a counter balance for publicly funded secular education provided by public sector institutions. These and other social wealth creating institutions (targeting insurance for old age, ill health or misfortune, and support formed to safeguard the savings of working families) “ran in parallel with [the few] institutions constructed by the State”[20].

3.3.2 1945 Federal Government Whitepaper on full employment

A significant policy shift A significant policy shift affecting the Australian Social Economy and within the period (1907-1972) is discussed briefly due to its particular significance for the Social Economy. The national system of unemployment introduced by the Curtin Labor Government in 1945 is often cited as a landmark in Federal Government policy with consequent effects on the Australian Social Economy. The White Paper (Full Employment in Australia) enabled persons between the age of 16 and 65 years to register for means tested benefits provided they were willing to accept 'suitable work'. The new social order proposed by the White Paper aimed at full employment supplemented by social security measures (supported by a National Welfare Fund which was created from taxpayers' contributions)[21].

 

The initiative with its consequent rise and fall of unemployment over the next thirty years illustrated the inadequacy of Government welfare policy and consequent effects on the Social Economy if only because of the burdens and gains on the social economy.

 

The reasons for the 'failure' of the new full employment policy are well documented[22].

3.3.3 Public Enterprise (1907-1972.)

The second phase of development of the Australian Social Economy begins with the Harvester Judgement and ends with stagflation. The Harvester Judgement of 1907 heralded the emergence of arguably Australia’s most important social welfare mechanism – the award wage. As Castles has argued a “wage earners” welfare state” emerged which offered ”social protection particularly focused on those who participated in the workforce and providing only far more vestigial, somewhat ungenerous, and means-tested support for those outside”[23].

This was an era when successive Federal Governments tried to create public enterprises that would take the place of the benevolent societies of the late nineteenth century for the purposes of creating mass citizenship. The high water mark of state responsibility, public enterprise and public spending was the Federal Government’s adoption of the Keynesian White Paper on unemployment and the subsequent attempted nationalisation of airlines and banking.

The principal form of Social Economy institution that emerged from 1907 to 1972 was arguably public enterprise. The concept of the State as a financial underwriter and developer of employment, social welfare and community development was a logical extension of the friendly societies that had only partially protected workers through the great depressions of the 1890s and 1930s. The role of the State was to buoy up these mechanisms through public enterprise and state financing. The advent of simultaneously rising unemployment and inflation represented a new and stronger limit to the role of government. This put a brake on the era of public enterprise.

3.3.4 Whitlam era 1972 – 1975

This period has been called the "Whitlam era". It was noted for the rapid changes in Federal Government attempts to address issues of social justice and disadvantage with which the Social economy continued to struggle. At the time, the need for good policy was all the more imperative in a context where the Henderson Inquiry in 1973 revealed that one fifth of Australians lived in poverty.

The Whitlam Labor Government clearly recognised the need to establish a more universal welfare framework. However their strategy involved poor financial and fiscal policy and ultimately resulted in a decline in provision which then impacted, and created pressure on the capacity of the Social economy to provide for society’s disadvantaged. The period witnessed 'stagflation' and a decline in secondary industry (with higher unemployment and greater welfare dependency). The result was persistent unemployment and a widening gap between rich and poor.

3.3.5 Social Enterprise/Business (c1975-current)

The third identified phase of Social Economy development occurred in the contemporary period during which organisations and programs with a social mission became key “partners” of the state in achieving social and economic opportunities for the disadvantaged. From 1975, these Social Economy institutions and programs primarily represented by corporate charity combined with government welfare relief, and not only supplemented but sometimes supplanted the award wage as the chief form of social and economic support for many Australians. With a pool of about one million people permanently out of work, a succession of recessions, both combined with technical change and other factors, all have concentrated inequality in particular regions and locales. The 1995-96 Working Nation initiative may be seen as the last hurrah of the wages earners’ welfare state. It was the boldest attempt by a government initiative to put the nation back to work. However the mass traineeship system that was the heart of the plan created a churning effect rather than a deep transformation of long term unemployment. Some would argue it was a short-lived experiment. However, even UK’s Blair Labor Government has moved beyond the idea of trying to develop a one-off national program in favour of investments in social enterprise[24] and community capacity building. There was also increasing doubt about the concept of investing in training and education and the human capital theory of development as an important means of rectifying disadvantage.

As the award wage proved inaccessible to an increasingly large number of Australians, the role and responsibility of corporate charities has become more important. The logical historical transition to a new era of Social Economy began with the demise of the Commonwealth Employment Service and the awarding of job placement contracts to Australia’s major charitable corporations and with the publication of the Participation Support for a More Equitable Society (McClure Report) in 2000. The awarding of job placement and job network responsibilities to the national corporate charities is less important for the purposes of this research study than the recognition in the McClure Report of the need to support “leaders who are committed to transforming communities through partnerships across public, private and non-profit sectors”. McClure also placed an emphasis on the creation of micro-businesses (enterprises that employ 5-6 people) as important contributors to regional economic development. The New Enterprise Initiative Strategy (NEIS) was seen as a catalyst for the development of regional micro-businesses.

Currently, there are a range of new wave Social Economy programs and organisations that have emerged, sometimes in response to the McClure Report and as a result of Commonwealth Government support and recognition. But there are many others than have emerged more often independently, as a matter of historical necessity.

What can be said about the history of the Australian Social Economy that may shed light on issues that are identified in this study? There are several tentative conclusions one may make:

 

· Australian Governments have historically never taken full responsibilities for the delivery of social goods and services. Initially it was the charities and even today the outsourcing of services by Governments to corporate charities is evidence for this fact. · Many social programs and organisations appeal to unemployment as a means to address poverty and disadvantage. It is probably relevant to ask if members of the Social Economy appreciate how current Government policy is located within the history of work and employment or unemployment in Australia. ·   The Australian Social Economy demonstrates a growth history that is largely unregulated and diffused in terms of the nature of the entities that have come to be included under that name. ·   Many of the earliest organisations in the Social Economy were faith-based and this has continued to contemporary times where they are the largest service organisations (the small vs large issue) in contemporary Australia. ·   Many organisations (understandably) focused on employment and sustainability but within a context of dependency on scant resources and funding. ·   Funding and resourcing of programs and organisations has historically been preeminent in the concerns of members and may explain partially why it persists as a major concern among members of a contemporary Social Economy. ·   The sector appears to be left to its own devices. This may have positive consequences in that within a market economy framework, it sets conditions for more innovation. But it also has negative effects such as lack of access to personnel development and education and training in capabilities needed to progress a thriving Social Economy. ·     In contemporary history, there is a movement to partnering among public, private and non-profit boundaries. This is not a necessary outcome of the McClure Report but seems temporally associated with it at least.