No abstract

International debates about the comparative institutional structures of welfare states have focused on social expenditure and the inclusiveness of social policy. However, these debates have not accounted for the significant rise of fiscal welfare and, in particular, social tax expenditures (STEs) in our understanding of welfare regimes. The growth of STEs has been particularly significant in Australia. While there has been recognition that STEs contribute to a second tier of welfare provision in some policy domains, there has been no systematic attempt to account for them within the institutional structure of the Australian welfare state. In this article, we chart the rise of STEs, the reasons for their growth in the Australian political economy and conceive of them as forming a second institutional layer of a dual welfare state. We conclude by suggesting that this analysis has broader implications for other, particularly liberal, welfare regimes.

Australia and New Zealand developed distinctive 'wage-earner welfare states', with social protection largely delivered through high breadwinner basic incomes and residual social policies. Market reforms then pursued in both countries during the 1980s and 1990s retrenched important elements of the Antipodean model. Our article offers a novel characterization of major reforms to both welfare states from the mid-1990s to the early 2010s. We focus on industrial relations, as a form of wage-earner welfare, and expansions to social provision for families and retirees that may be viewed as responding to the evolving needs of wage-earners as family patterns diversify and populations age. Policy reversals complicate the picture of the long-term path of industrial relations. Voters rejected the Employment Contracts Act in New Zealand in 2000 and WorkChoices in Australia in 2007, with incoming labour governments moderating policy to favour wage-earner expectations of decent wages and fair bargaining. Alongside this, governments expanded both paternalistic social policies and private social provision. We argue these changes taken together produced a 'hollowing out' of wage-earner welfare in both countries, accompanied by increasingly stratified welfare, which marginalizes and stigmatizes many outside the workforce. But, we also note persistent differences, reflecting the more radical and 'pure' New Zealand experiment, its relatively centralized politics and stronger liberal tradition. Hence, Australia retains more progressive taxation and family support less connected with employment status, while making greater use of tax expenditures to support private welfare.

In advanced democracies, unions influence industrial relations through collective action and law. They also maintain influence in politics through their alliances with labour parties. But the weakness of some labour movements, most apparent in falling membership, raises questions about their capacity to shape future industrial relations policy, reach voters and maintain their party alliances. Drawing on literature in industrial relations and political sociology, this article provides a framework for understanding how the Australian union movement successfully campaigned against the conservative Howard government's labour laws called WorkChoices. We characterize the union movement's campaign -Your Rights at Work -as a form of political organizing that responded to both shifting state strategy and the limits of traditional defences constituted by industrial action, legal protection and reliance on the Labor Party. Political mobilizations produce different kinds of impacts. Given that the campaign relied on a sophisticated electoral strategy, we analyse Australian Election Study (AES) 2007

Despite growing evidence of significant impacts from human-induced climate change, policy responses have been slow.