Search

In order to understand the potential of new policy instruments in tackling environmental problems we locate their development in the context of challenges to traditional roles of the Australian state in promoting welfare and national economic development

One of the predominant issues on the agenda of diplomats and politicians is how to address the consequences of shifts in perception about threats to the environment and the actual short and long-term characteristics and effects of environmental degradation. Another challenge is that such issues as climate change impact on many areas including trade, economic and fiscal policies, employment, transport, agriculture and regional development. Furthermore, decisions taken at a national level cannot be isolated from international concerns, as in the case of the Kyoto Protocol. This article maps out some of the differences between Australia and the European Union in relation to the role of developing countries in tackling climate change, the use of market mechanisms to tackle environmental problems and the implementation of punitive compliance systems. We explore the challenges facing Australia and the EU in sustainable development, why the EU has a reputation as a leader in this field, how Australia has engaged the challenge and why the similarities in the approach of Australia and the EU are more striking than the differences.

Analyses efforts of the Australian government to come to terms with sustainable development. It examines Australia's National Strategy for ecologically sustainable development and considers its impact on policy and debates. It documents political developments during the second half of the 1990s that weakened the country's response to sustainable development, and increased the caution with which it viewed commitments to be undertaken under the climate change regime.

This report presents the major findings of the most detailed investigation of the attitudes of a cross-section of the Australian population and their attitudes to state and private welfare provisions. The survey, which was sponsored by the Social Policy Research Centre, was conducted in 1988-89 and based on a sample of 3507 people covering all States and Territories.The report addresses many of the issues raised in debates over the past two decades about the future of the welfare state in Australia and overseas. The release of the report is particularly timely since it coincides with arguments between the major political parties over the reform of statutory provision for health care, education and pensions. The Federal Opposition has placed on the agenda the notion of much greater involvement by the private sector and by charitable and voluntary organizations in all these spheres. The apparent justification for these suggestions has been to reduce government spending, to address the problem of an apparent decline in the work ethic among sections of the population, and to challenge the power of interest groups that are associated with the existing government welfare provisions. The Federal Government has been swift to condemn some of these proposals but has also continued to review existing welfare state provisions and arrangements.This report examines public attitudes relevant to some of these debates. Dr Papadakis has emphasised that the focus on public attitudes can easily be misinterpreted to mean that public opinion shapes public policy. In reality, the picture is more complex. Political parties, the media and interest groups are constantly attempting to shape public opinion about the welfare state, though not necessarily with great success. Dr Papadakis does, however, point out that it is possible to create radically different platforms for reform in social policy by being highly selective in the use of evidence from survey research.

One of the predominant issues on the agenda of diplomats and politicians is how to address the consequences of shifts in perception about threats to the environment and the actual short and long-term characteristics and effects of environmental degradation. Another challenge is that such issues as climate change impact on many areas including trade, economic and fiscal policies, employment, transport, agriculture and regional development. Furthermore, decisions taken at a national level cannot be isolated from international concerns, as in the case of the Kyoto Protocol. This paper maps out some of the differences between Australia and such transnational organizations as the European Union, be they in relation to the role of developing countries in tackling climate change, the use of market mechanisms to tackle environmental problems and the implementation of punitive compliance systems. The paper explores why on some issues Australia and the EU might be perceived as either leaders and pioneers or laggards. The paper also looks beyond the binary coding of ‘laggards’ versus ‘leaders’ to some striking parallels between the two jurisdictions in their efforts to achieve sustainable development, ecological modernisation and introduce new environmental policy instruments as well as in similar pressures arising from changes in value systems over the past four decades. The paper is organized around four themes: challenges facing both Australia and the EU; why the EU is regarded as a global leader; how Australia has engaged with sustainable development; and how commonalities are more striking than differences.

The Australian Election Study (AES) is a survey designed to collect data for academic research on Australian public opinion and behaviour during federal elections. All the studies are national, post-election self-completion (mail-in, mail-out) surveys with the sample drawn randomly from the electoral register. The 1987 study had two goals. The first was to continue the broad line of enquiry established by the 1967 and 1979 Australian National Political Attitudes surveys so that patterns of stability and change in the political attitudes and behaviour of the Australian electorate could be traced over two decades. The second was to assess the electoral impact of forces specific to the 1987 election in order better to understand its outcome. For 1987, the total sample was 3,061. Of those sampled, 156 moved/gone away and 1,080 were refusals/non-responses. There were 1,825 valid responses giving an effective response of 62.8. The survey instrument consisted of 6 sections totalling 90 questions. Section A: The Federal Election included 18 questions on media coverage of the 1987 election and previous voting record/preferences. Section B: Political Leaders included 7 questions about party leader preferences and reasons for preferences. Section C: Election Issues included 26 questions about the economy and non-economic issues including defence, mining, health, ties to the UK and USA, the flag, law and order, migration and immigrants, Australian aborigines, censorship, unions, homosexuality, and gender equality. Section D: Social and Political Goals included 8 questions about the effectiveness of government and how the country should be governed. Section E: Education and Work included 11 questions about educational qualifications/background and work experience. Section F: Personal Background included 20 questions about birthplace and family background, place of residence, and work and religious affiliations. A systematic random sample of 2762 cases covering all States and Ter

One of the predominant issues on the agenda of diplomats and politicians is how to address the consequences of shifts in perception about threats to the environment and the actual short and long-term characteristics and effects of environmental degradation. Another challenge is that such issues as climate change impact on many areas including trade, economic and fiscal policies, employment, transport, agriculture and regional development. Furthermore, decisions taken at a national level cannot be isolated from international concerns, as in the case of the Kyoto Protocol. This paper maps out some of the differences between Australia and such transnational organizations as the European Union, be they in relation to the role of developing countries in tackling climate change, the use of market mechanisms to tackle environmental problems and the implementation of punitive compliance systems. The paper explores why on some issues Australia and the EU might be perceived as either leaders and pioneers or laggards. The paper also looks beyond the binary coding of ‘laggards’ versus ‘leaders’ to some striking parallels between the two jurisdictions in their efforts to achieve sustainable development, ecological modernisation and introduce new environmental policy instruments as well as in similar pressures arising from changes in value systems over the past four decades. The paper is organized around four themes: challenges facing both Australia and the EU; why the EU is regarded as a global leader; how Australia has engaged with sustainable development; and how commonalities are more striking than differences.