This year marks the 70^th anniversary of the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS), the peak advocacy group of the community welfare sector. Established in 1956 as the Australian Social Welfare Council, it began as a coordinating organisation for non-government welfare agencies, operating initially from a single room at the University of Sydney. 

Its founding membership included 23 major religious charities, professional associations, women's organisations and welfare groups, among them the Salvation Army, the Church of England in Australia, the National Catholic Welfare Committee, the Australian Jewish Welfare Society, the community-based YMCA and YWCA, and representatives of women and nurses; the British (later renamed Australian) Medical Association; the Australian Association of Social Workers; the Schools of Social Work; the War Widows Guild of Australia, and the Services Canteen Trust Fund which assisted large numbers of ex-servicemen and their wives and children with education and welfare needs. 

Over time, the ACOSS membership changed to include a wider range of organisations including consumer groups such as the Council for the Single Mother and Her Child, and community groups such as Community Aid Abroad. Accordingly, the Council revised its role to act as both a peak representative of non-government welfare service providers, and an advocate for the interests of Australians living on low incomes. Today, ACOSS defines its core aim as acting to achieve ‘a fair, inclusive and sustainable Australia’.

Accordingly, ACOSS seeks to reduce poverty and inequality by:

• Leading and supporting initiatives within the community services and welfare sector … as an independent non-party political voice
• By drawing on the direct experiences of people affected by poverty and inequality and the expertise of its diverse member base, we develop and promote socially and economically responsible public policy and action by government, community and business’.

Today, ACOSS has more than 100 national membership organisations, including:

• The eight Councils of Social Service in each of the states and territories. 
• The national peak organisations of both consumers and service providers.
• National faith-based and secular welfare agencies.
• The principal First Nations community-controlled organisations; and 
• Low income consumer groups and unions. 

They also have a large number of associate members consisting of state and locally-based organisations.

ACOSS’s diverse membership base enables it to document the real needs and experiences of people living in poverty, and to present real-life evidence concerning the impact of disadvantage on individuals, families and communities in public policy debates. 

Historically, most of its elected leaders have been middle-class welfare professionals who acted as advocates for the interests of low income Australians. Its presidents have usually held prominent or voluntary roles in major community welfare organisations.

Ideologically, ACOSS can be broadly described as a social justice organisation that rejects explanations of disadvantage based solely on individual behaviour or personal choice. 

Instead, ACOSS presents a social rights perspective that emphasises addressing the systemic and structural causes of poverty and inequality. A combination of secular social democratic ideas and Christian social values has arguably informed ACOSS's support for a publicly funded welfare safety net and a progressive taxation system designed to reduce inequality. 

ACOSS has experienced ideological attacks from groups associated with both the political left and right. Some political progressives have criticised ACOSS for allegedly keeping its arguments within the framework of the dominant free market discourse. 

For example, some Marxist critics argue that ACOSS should advance a more explicitly anti-capitalist policy agenda.  However, ACOSS believes pragmatically that it has to actively engage with all governments, whatever their political party or ideological alignments, in order to influence their policy decisions.

More politically influential in recent decades has been the free market critique of welfare lobby groups based on public choice theory. This perspective argues that advocacy organisations are often driven by the interests of professional staff and organisational survival rather than by the interests of those they claim to represent.  This critique appears misplaced given that ACOSS’s advocacy focuses on advancing higher incomes and life opportunities for welfare consumers, rather than expanding resources for welfare organisations and programs.

ACOSS describes itself as politically non-partisan. This means that it does not pursue a formal alliance with any particular government or political party which may lead to a diminution of its own political choices. Historically, ACOSS has often enjoyed closer relations with Labor governments than Coalition governments because of greater overlap in policy priorities.  But their relationships with governments of both political sides have always involved a mixture of cooperation and criticism. In recent years, ACOSS seems to have achieved a particular commonality of views with the minority Australian Greens Party.

ACOSS mostly operates as an ‘insider’ lobbying group concerned to retain an ongoing consultative status with governments. Accordingly, it relies on well-researched evidence, lived-experience testimony, professional expertise, representative advocacy, carefully timed interventions, moderate policy proposals and appeals to the broader public interest. 

Specific advocacy strategies regularly employed by ACOSS include submissions to, and meetings with, leading public servants and government ministers, presentations to parliamentary inquiries, meetings with internal party policy committees, addresses to public forums such as the National Press Club, and occasionally public pressure campaigns such as the Raise the Rate campaign. ACOSS also maintains extensive contact with the media since media coverage can be a crucial lever for impacting on policy outcomes. 

ACOSS’s policy impact is primarily advanced by its perceived ‘moral authority’ to represent the interests of low income earners. However, it arguably has limited real power compared to powerful interest groups representing business or unions or key professional groups. 

One reason is that the voluntaristic nature of its membership structure means it cannot compel its affiliates to mobilise behind a specific policy position. Another is that it cannot employ economic sanctions such as strikes or disinvestment to influence policy making processes.

Consequently, it mostly relies on co-operation and persuasion strategies, rather than contest strategies, to advance policy change, and its advocacy is likely to be successful only when the proposed policy agenda does not clash fundamentally with that of the government. For example, ACOSS has argued for nearly three decades for a major increase in the rate of the JobSeeker payment.

Approximately 35% of ACOSS's income comes from an annual federal government Community Sector Grant, down from around 59% in the early 1990s.  Other major contributions to its current income of just over $4 million come from membership fees, individual donations, philanthropic grants, project management and fees for services, and sponsorships.

The advantage of continued government funding is that it facilitates relative financial certainty and enables forward planning. However, financial reliance on government grants may potentially compromise ACOSS’s freedom to publicly contest government policies. 

ACOSS has arguably been an effective lobby group over time in maintaining concerns about poverty and inequality on the public policy agenda, defending the fundamental structures of the welfare state from retrenchment, and protecting its low income constituency from potentially greater hardship and distress. 

Although its influence has often been indirect, ACOSS has contributed to a number of significant policy outcomes, including: 

• The 1962 Widows in Australia study that persuaded the Commonwealth to significantly increase the pension for civilian widows with dependent children.
• The 1971-72 campaign for a national inquiry into the social welfare system, and its subsequent influential participation in the 1972-75 Poverty Inquiry headed by Ronald Henderson.
• The introduction of the Supporting Mothers Pension in 1973 by the Labor government.
• The expansion of interpreters and other migrant support services in the early to mid 1970s.
• The easing of invalid pension criteria introduced by the Coalition government in 1980.
• The establishment of Welfare Rights Centres.
• The Labor government’s 1987 Family Assistance Package  that significantly reduced child poverty.
• The defeat of the Coalition’s proposed consumption tax in 1993; and
• The softening of the Coalition government’s breaching (financial penalty) legislation in 2003.

However, it arguably has had only limited success in convincing governments to introduce specific measures that would advance greater social or economic equity.

Professor Philip Mendes completed a history of the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) for his Doctorate at La Trobe University in 1997. He is the author of Inside the Welfare Lobby: A history of the Australian Council of Social Service. Sussex Academic Press. 2006, and multiple scholarly articles on the history and activities of ACOSS.