Improving Policy Effectiveness: Land Use Planning in a Devolved Polity

The Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 175–185 doi:10.1111/j.1467-8500.2007.00526.x

RESEARCH AND EVALUATION

Improving Policy Effectiveness: Land Use Planning in aDevolved Polity

Deborah Peel and Michael Gregory LloydUniversity of Liverpool

Improving public policy efficiency and effectiveness in land use planning is an establishedpriority on the prevailing political agenda in the UK. Practical measures to enhance policyformulation in local land use development plans in Scotland offer an interesting case studyof an attempt to improve policy consistency, and to secure efficiency gains in policy author-ship. This article considers the specific focus on the drafting stage of public policy-makingdrawing on insights provided by research into the production of model policies in Scotland.It questions the extent to which such an initiative will promote a more robust public policy-making discipline in light of the policy cycle. The discussion of the case study illustrates apractical attempt by central government to enhance public policy-making at the local level,while raising questions about the dangers of invoking a technocratic and instrumentalistapproach to policy analysis.

Key words: land use planning, model policy, public policy efficiency

Public policy in its different forms is attractingincreased attention in political, professional,and academic circles (Everett 2003). This inter-est is promoting opportunities to explore policyinnovation and practice further. This article isprompted by a specific initiative in the devolvednation-region of Scotland to introduce modelplanning policies into local land use develop-ment plans. It stems from a particular concernwith encouraging ‘best practice’ and sharing‘policies that work’. This resulted in a scop-ing study to establish the potential for ‘a setof model policies on which councils can drawwhere there is a strong policy steer from the[Scottish] Executive, or which deal with issuescommon across most or all Scottish authorities’(Lloyd and Peel 2004). In essence, the initia-tive to develop model policies represented anattempt to secure efficiency gains in both theformulation and subsequent implementation ofland use policies at the local level. Further, therewas a concern with providing greater certaintyto investor and development interests workingacross different local authorities, and where

greater consistency of policy was deemed tobe desirable.

At first glance, the proposal to introduce aresource-bank of model policies may appearas a relatively straightforward and pragmaticmeasure to reduce unnecessary effort and toovercome a perceived tendency by local landuse planning authorities to ‘reinvent the wheel’when formulating development plan policies(Scottish Executive 2002). It may be under-stood as a practical attempt to capture ‘whatworks’, and what, for some, appears to be elu-sive ‘best practice’. Yet, the initiative raised anumber of questions about the arrangements,procedures and dynamics of policy design; theinherent power relations in policy formulation;and the role of the policy-maker as a criticallyreflective practitioner. This involves associatedtheoretical questions about the broader under-standing of the public policy cycle and the pre-requisites for a robust public policy-making dis-cipline in practice.

Although this article is specifically con-cerned with a Scottish-based initiative, it is

C© 2007 National Council of the Institute of Public Administration Australia

176 Improving Policy Effectiveness June 2007

important to note that the modernisation andreform of land use planning administration andregulation, is evident by the number of at-tempts to reform planning systems in moderneconomies (Campbell 2003; Dixon 2003). InNorthern Ireland, for example, topical guidanceasserts the need for well-crafted policies thatare unambiguous, succinct and easily under-stood (Department of the Environment 2003).Moreover, policy guidance in England con-firms that land use development plan prepara-tion processes need to be streamlined furtherand more effectively project-managed in orderto optimise the available public administrationresource, and to facilitate the appropriate levelsand patterns of land and property development(Office of the Deputy Prime Minister 2002).Scottish experience, therefore, forms part ofa much broader international canvass to mod-ernise prevailing land use planning systems inthe light of changing state-market relationships.

The case study of model planning policiespresented here is located in the literature relat-ing to attempts to enhance the policy-makingdiscipline. It offers insights into the wider in-ternational discussions about the modernisa-tion of public administration, and illustrates theways in which central government may seekto improve local government policy-making inpractice. Taking a political economy perspec-tive, the article contextualises contemporaryattempts to modernise the land use planningsystem, and identifies emerging issues in spa-tial planning policy. The discussion highlightsthe complex environmental, political, and in-stitutional context in which land use and de-velopment planning takes place. We criticallyexamine the use of model or standard poli-cies as a way to enhance policy formulationand implementation. The case study examineshow policy-makers in Scotland have respondedto the idea of model policies, which raises anumber of questions about their effective usein practice. We conclude by discussing the im-plications of what may be described as a prag-matic attempt by central government to reformlocal government public policy practice, andhighlight a number of questions about invokinga technocratic and instrumentalist approach topolicy analysis.

Contextualising Land Use Planning Reformin the UK

The land use planning system, as one aspect ofUK state public policy and service provision,offers a particularly interesting perspectivefor considering attempts to transform publicadministration, since it is the principal mech-anism for mediating the social interest in theallocation, use, development and control of landand property resources. As such, the land useplanning system finds itself directly at the in-terface between defined state-market interests.This nexus, however, is a complex one, and, fur-thermore, is coloured by competing social con-structions of the public interest. This may betypified by the clear demarcation between as-serted developmental and environmental con-servation ambitions which argue for differentoutcomes from the planning regulatory frame-work. Moreover, the modernisation of the landuse planning system in the UK is taking place inthe wake of the political economy context of theThird Way, and its particular attempt to recon-figure state, market and civil society relations(Giddens 1998). In combination, this provides achallenging context for a reworking of land useand development policy-making in the publicinterest.

Traditional social constructions of the na-ture and working of public administration re-main the subject of considerable critical debate(Colebatch 2005; Howard 2001). For example,attention has been drawn to the inability of pub-lic administrators to perform what is held to berational decision-making; the insufficiency ofreliable knowledge to expedite the process inpractice; the inherent ambiguity and mutationof public ends in changing political and ide-ological contexts, and an implementation gap(Taylor 1998; Parsons 1995). In more recenttimes, the commitment to enhance public par-ticipation has been identified as resulting fromthe public at large having lost confidence inthe various processes and outcomes of the landuse planning system (Scottish Executive 2005).This has led to a specific reform agenda to pro-mote opportunities for more constructive de-bate, engagement and dialogue in determin-ing land use and development policy outcomes.


Peel and Lloyd 177

Indeed, as a consequence of the modernisingagenda, the potential arena for community orstakeholder engagement or collaboration at dif-ferent stages in the public policy cycle havebeen extended. This includes creating oppor-tunities for relatively more direct public con-sultation around specific potential developmentproposals by the developers themselves; andrelatively more formal involvement in policyformulation. In addition, greater attention isbeing paid to schemes for the monitoring andevaluation of policy effectiveness. This repre-sents an important shift from the earlier landuse planning arrangements.

Following Parsons (1995), for example, it isuseful to note certain important principles asso-ciated with what might be described as the bu-reaucratic public policy paradigm. This modeof public policy action is effectively charac-terised as being centralised and hierarchical indesign, and is founded on a guiding concernwith state intervention in the public interest,and concomitantly with limiting the potentialpromotion of self-interest in politics and publicadministration (Grant 2005). Indeed, in termsof the UK post-war land use planning system, apolitical consensus developed which acknowl-edged the legitimacy of public sector controlsover the private development of land and prop-erty (Healey 1988). From this perspective, theplanning system has been held to demonstratecertain key qualities. These have included de-liberate attempts by local planning authoritiesto relate the detailed management of environ-mental change to broader national and regionalstrategies and priorities; to manage the func-tional relations between town and country; todischarge the comprehensiveness of planninglegislation; to assert its practical traditions, andalso to demonstrate its value structure whichhas emphasised access to environmental justiceand quality for all.

This particular social construction of publicpolicy-making in land use planning may be pre-sented as an essentially governmental functionfor mediating between the complex and lay-ered public and private interests in land andproperty development. From this perspective,it follows that the role and ethos of the profes-sional planner working in a public administra-

tion context is pivotal to the effective workingof these arrangements. In practice, however, thecontext for government regulatory interventionhas evolved and the policy arena has becomemuch more complex (Howard 2005). In this ar-ticle, we take a political economy perspectiveto understanding these changes, and their im-plications for planning in the public interest.

Following Giddens (1998), the evolving na-ture of the institutional arrangements andorganisational cultures over time may beconsidered in three broad political economyphases. These have tended to be defined in theUK as involving dirigiste forms of manage-ment and communication (Cooke and Morgan1998); managerialist influences, and based oncompetitive principles and public choice ar-rangements (Midwinter 1995); and an interestin more collaborative models of intervention(Healey 1997). Importantly, these specific ar-rangements have, over time, sought to artic-ulate a particular social construction of stateintervention and the role of public administra-tion in mediating the public interest in the landresource through policies set out in nationalstrategic guidance and local land use develop-ment plans.

Evolving Expectations for Land UseDevelopment Plans

Attempts to rearticulate the nature and purposeof the arrangements for land use planning inthe UK are not new, although the shift to pro-cedural rather than substantive issues is rel-atively more recent (Taylor 1998). Land usedevelopment plans play a central role in theUK planning system. These documents assertthe perceived public interest in defined local ju-risdictions and set out the legal framework forpublic sector regulation of land use and devel-opment. Following Poxon (2000), however, andin the period since their introduction in 1947, itis possible to identify considerable experimen-tation with, and revision of, the style of localplanning authority development plans. In part,this reflects the different political economy con-texts prevailing at different points in time, andtheir associated economic, social, and land andproperty development conditions.



The master-plan format, blueprint-style, de-velopment plan, for example, was associatedwith the physical interventions of the early post-war planning era to achieve the physical re-building of many urban centres. Here, there wasa relative consensus about the objectives forthe planning system. Yet, over time, the out-comes of the planning system have been ques-tioned (Taylor 1998). Those engaged in publicpolicy relating to land use planning tended tobe perceived as technocratic bureaucrats. In thelate 1960s, the planning and development con-text evolved to accommodate wider social, eco-nomic and environmental dimensions of urbandevelopment, and involved increased attemptsat securing public participation in the land useplanning process. Significantly, this challengedthe perceived expert-led, top-down approach toland use planning policy. In addition, attemptswere made to adopt a systems approach to plan-ning and to strengthen planning as a process ofrational action.

In contrast, during the 1980s there was arelatively marked move from these broad so-cial democratic value judgments to a relativelygreater neo-liberal emphasis on private prop-erty, investment and economic development.This normative shift involved attempts to liftthe perceived ‘burden’ of public sector landuse planning controls on private sector propertydevelopment. An important emphasis here, forexample, was the speeding up of the administra-tive processes of the land use planning systemitself, and the adoption of a relatively more ex-plicit managerialist approach to its associatedprocedures (Taylor 1998).

The subsequent shift to a ‘plan-led’ systemin the early 1990s emphasised a structured andhierarchical arrangement rather than a piece-meal approach to shaping private sector prop-erty development. Critically, this move was in-tended to assert the primacy of the develop-ment plan in providing clearer and more consis-tent policy guidance to developers and builders(Nadin and Cullingworth 2002). Inevitably, itfocused attention on the perceived quality, con-sistency and clarity of development plan poli-cies. Specific concerns turned on whether ornot development plans were up-to-date, withpolicies clearly reflecting prevailing national

objectives, whether they offered consistent ad-vice on emerging policy issues, and ultimatelywhether development plans were perceived asarticulating precise local policy conditions toguide investors and developers. On-going au-diting processes confirm that these objectivesare not being secured in practice (Scottish Ex-ecutive 2002).

The Third Way political economy has asits principal objective moved to modernise ar-rangements for governance and public policy(Giddens 1998). Central to its political programhas been the introduction of devolution to theconstituent nation-regions of the UK. In prac-tice, devolution has been differentiated accord-ing to a number of regional, political, economicand institutional circumstances (Allmendinger,Morphet and Tewdwr-Jones 2005). Yet, acommon priority has been securing sustainableeconomic growth and facilitating the moderni-sation of the public sector, with a particular em-phasis on the procedural aspects of the land useplanning system:

The Executive’s top priority is promoting sus-

tainable economic growth to create a modern and

vibrant Scotland. A modern, up to date planning

system is critical to achieving that objective. Sus-

tainable growth requires development, and the

role of planning is to ensure that this development

is encouraged and managed in a sustainable way

(Scottish Executive 2005:5).

Importantly, the ‘plan-led’ system itself re-mains the bed-rock of contemporary land useplanning practice at the local level. Indeed,the review of the planning system in Scotland(Scottish Executive 2002) has re-emphasisedthe significance of streamlining the develop-ment plan and formulating clear, concise andsuccinct policies in a consistent way across lo-cal planning authorities. A concern with mod-ernising government in the UK has promptedconsiderable re-thinking of public policy in allits dimensions, but two themes suggest them-selves as particularly important in contempo-rary policy debates.

First, there are the debates about the re-scaling and decentralisation of policy (Lee1999). This is, perhaps, best encapsulated inthe commitment to devolution in the UK.


Peel and Lloyd 179

Central to the principle of devolution is thatpolicy-making is intended to be located closerto the people most directly affected by pub-lic service delivery and outcomes. Indeed, theWhite Paper on modernising land use plan-ning in Scotland (Scottish Executive 2005)makes repeated references to inclusion and theneed to bring together development proposalswith the respective community of interests ina democratic manner. Here, transparency andtrust are identified as critical. Second, there isa very strong concern with achieving greaterefficiency and effectiveness in practice. Theseobjectives are then reflected in a concern withthe administrative system being made faster andmore user-friendly. Here, there is an emphasison fitness for purpose. In addition to these rel-atively more generic objectives are certain spe-cific policy developments relating to land useplanning. These are concerned with the currentinterest in ‘spatial planning policy’, the neces-sary and quality of the policy skills required,and a revived interest in the policy cycle.

Emerging Influences on Land UseDevelopment Plan Policies

A relatively new influence on the policy-making of land use planning stems from thetrend towards the ideas and principles asso-ciated with spatial planning. Specifically, theemphasis is on the preparation and integrationof corporate public policies that can emphasisespatial outcomes relating to sustainable devel-opment and high standards of design (PlanningOfficers Society 2004). One of the challengesof this particular agenda is that new spatiallyrelevant policies need to be incorporated intoexisting and emerging land use planning doc-umentation and practice. A consultation paperon policies for spatial plans in England pro-duced by the Planning Officers Society (2004)highlights contemporary concerns:

Spatial planning will be quite different from land-

use planning, but, thankfully, there are no funda-

mental new skills required by policy planners to

construct policies for spatial plans. Many policy

planners have been producing well-written and

effective policies for years and they will easily

rise to the challenge presented by the widening

scope of spatial planning. On the other hand,

some policy planners will need to brush up on

the competencies mentioned in this Guide before

getting stuck into their first spatial plan (Planning

Officers Society 2004:8).

In order to support this ambition, the PlanningOfficers Society (2004) produced draft guid-ance which elaborated pointers for good policypractice, and also set out a number of possi-ble ‘standard policies’. These were intended toact as potential templates for adoption by landuse policy planners, and thereby to contributeto realising greater competencies in planningpractice. This interest in providing policy mod-els to enhance public administration and reg-ulation is not, of course, restricted to the UK.The Government of Western Australia (2000),for example, has adopted model text guidelinesthat provide a common approach to policy for-mulation, supported by indicative approachesto the formulation of policy content.

Government guidance in New Zealand like-wise asserts the need for clearly stated policies,and a more solid awareness of the public pol-icy cycle in order to ensure consistency, credi-bility and certainty for policy and plans (Min-istry for the Environment 2003). Significantly,this interest in the broader policy cycle as con-text to land use planning is echoed in the En-glish Makingplans guidance which emphasised‘the place of the plan in a continuous cycle ofunderstanding needs, making policy, managingchange, monitoring and review’ (Office of theDeputy Prime Minister 2002:5). Moreover, theWhite Paper which seeks to modernise the landuse planning system in Scotland (Scottish Ex-ecutive 2005) places considerable weight on theengagement of local communities from the be-ginning to the end of the policy process. Whilereflecting the current political emphasis on pro-moting wider civil engagement in planning, thisalso clearly represents an extended view aboutthe opportunities for active engagement in thedifferent stages of policy-making.

The policy cycle as a theoretical con-cept, description of contemporary practice,pragmatic tool, and/or normative model hasstimulated considerable debate (Everett 2003;Bridgman and Davis 2003; Colebatch 2005;



Howard 2005). In this context, this genericapproach to understanding policy-making ascomprising various stages is deployed in orderto understand better the specific activities in-volved in policy-making in terms of the associ-ated players, processes and procedures. Indeed,viewing the policy cycle as a flexible frame-work for decision-makers which can serve toalert policy-makers to the dynamics of the dif-ferent stages of policy-making (Bridgman andDavis 2003) appears to reflect the contempo-rary UK interpretation of this particular device.Nonetheless, the critical debates are helpful inhighlighting potential areas of concern withrespect to certain assumptions around powerand influence, the neutrality of the public pol-icy context, the underlying rationality of theprocess, the impartiality of the actors, and theincreasingly complex environment regardingthose actively engaged in problem identifica-tion and consultation, option generation, policyformulation, implementation, monitoring andevaluation. Indeed, it is this relatively more plu-ralistic context and associated participative am-bition that lie at the heart of this case study.

Case Study: Model Development PlanPolicies

The attention currently being given to findingthe appropriate means of sharing ‘best prac-tice’ in policy-making in Scotland is boundup with the wider attempts to improve policy-making in land use planning in the UK. It wasspecifically mooted in a far-reaching review ofstrategic land use planning in Scotland (ScottishExecutive 2002). In addition, it is informed by a(new) vision for planning practice (Royal TownPlanning Institute 2001) and a perceived needfor a culture change (Scottish Executive 2005).The Town and Country Planning Association,for example, has established a number of dedi-cated task teams to deal with individual policytopics, organised master-classes on individualpolicy subjects, and commissioned experts toproduce topical guides on professional plan-ning practice. The intention is to contributeto the promotion of a range of best practicecompetencies to meet both public and private

sector expectations in a changing world. Never-theless, despite a range of conferences alreadyheld by different institutions, commercialorganisations and academic bodies, there is aconcern that the precise mechanism for facili-tating the sharing of best practice may be miss-ing (Lloyd and Peel 2004). There is clearly aperception that more opportunities are requiredto harness the lessons that may be drawn fromexamples of existing policies that work on theground.

A significant aspect of the review of planningin Scotland has been the associated researchprojects, consultation papers and scoping stud-ies effected in order to inform, promulgate andfacilitate this process. Although the consulta-tion exercise that included model planning poli-cies was not explicit about defining them, it didassert that model policies were not intendedto be prescriptive. Furthermore, such policieswere to be drafted in a joint process betweencentral government and local planning authori-ties. This would suggest a practical way of pro-moting greater inclusion and partnership in thepolicy arena.

Indicative land use planning topics, whichwere identified as likely to be amenable to be-ing crafted in a model form, included policiesderived from international and national legisla-tion, those with a strategic focus, or those withan environmental or protectionist characteris-tic. Commenting on the proposal to introducemodel planning policies, consultees clearly as-cribed different interpretations as to what modelpolicies might be, what form they might take,how they might be disseminated among dif-ferent user groups; and their relative weightin decision-making processes (Geoff PeartConsulting 2002). The consultees spannedthose working in public administration, includ-ing governmental bodies and local planningauthorities; private sector bodies, includingbusiness, developers, and mineral operators;and professional organisations, together withplanning consultants and lawyers. Locallyelected community representatives and volun-tary bodies, as well as a number of individuals,participated in the consultation exercise. Im-portantly, there was no consensus about the po-tential impact of model policies with respect to


Peel and Lloyd 181

enhancing the planning system, and, in particu-lar, in meeting the twin objectives of efficiencyand inclusion.

On the one hand, certain respondents per-ceived the benefits of model policies as offer-ing the opportunity for sharing common word-ing through the diffusion of a model text whichhad been tested at appeal and in practice. Thiswould effectively represent a ‘rite of passage’for confirming the standing of a model policy.By then becoming a ‘model’ policy, policiesthereby might attain a certain status and cred-ibility in the policy community, through hav-ing had their robustness tested. Here, the in-tended efficiency gains of model policies turnon removing them from any subsequent publicinquiry or legal challenge. On the other hand,it was pointed out that any local planning au-thority deciding not to incorporate a nationallysanctioned model planning policy, but to drafta customised local policy might then introducea different set of inefficiencies into the land useplanning system as they would be required tojustify their non-adoption of the broader modelpolicy template (Geoff Peart Consulting 2002).

An important element of the feedback on thepotential for model development plan policiesconcerned the necessary skills base and particu-larly the need for a more critically reflective ap-proach to policy design. This can be illustratedby the following observations from those withdirect experience of drafting and working withland use and development public policies.1

A particular concern was that the develop-ment of model development plan policies mightlead to relatively simplistic ‘aping’ and ‘paint-ing by numbers’ by those working in policy for-mulation. This was articulated by one planningconsultancy which observed:

The fear would be that centralised approval of

model policies might encourage the ritualistic ap-

plication of approved model policies in situations

where there should be a more careful considera-

tion of the policy response (Geoff Peart Consult-

ing 2002:39).

Allied to this was a sense that individual localplanning authorities when faced with the op-portunity to take policies ‘off the shelf’ wouldavoid thinking the issue through from first

principles. The implications are also that au-thorities might then routinely import a policywhich is alien to their specific local circum-stances. Significantly, there was a related con-cern that a body of model policies could militateagainst policy innovation and local creativity.This particular tension was captured thus by alocal planning authority participant:

Part of me says we’re looking for advice – it’s

about anyone taking part – but, on the other hand,

if it tends to spoon-feed and suppress thinking,

then it’s not so good (Lloyd and Peel 2004:46).

While there was a concern, in some cases, thatthe existence of a model might reduce think-ing about policy relevance, there was clearly aperception of the need to provide access to a re-source which people are able to use, adapt anddevelop. This was viewed as offering impor-tant efficiency savings, and being able to importpolicies that work. Indeed, several practitionersasserted the importance of learning from others,with the proviso, however, that such policiescould nonetheless be moulded to fit their partic-ular local circumstances. Notwithstanding thepotential benefits of model planning policies,however, the need for a more cautious approachwas asserted:

We have 32 [local planning] authorities – so there

are at least 32 different ways of doing things

and new ideas – some ideas may appear good

but be rubbish. There’s tremendous variety and

that’s good. Without freedom these new varia-

tions might not emerge. Let’s make people think.

There were certain drivers that meant model plan-

ning policies were proposed in the first place: na-

tional developers want to know everything about

every authority. They want plan preparation to be

quicker. Will model planning policies do that? Or

will it be at the expense of fundamental thinking

and ownership? We have to question their fitness

for purpose and exercise caution [Planning me-

diator at a focus group].

The implications of this reasoning are that weremodel policies to be drawn up, their use wouldneed to be carefully crafted. As one practitionerobserved:

I see some benefit in having some examples of

model planning policies – but it’s oversimplifying



that we can simply ‘cut and paste’ policies. We

might have model planning policies as general

principles with the Scottish Executive there to

give general guidance [Local planning authority

participant at a focus group].

Therefore the evidence would suggest that at-tention to a robust planning policy discipline isessential (Scottish Executive 2004). This wouldalso depend on the relative skills and trainingrequired for public policy-making. FollowingWolman and Page (2000), for example, the im-portance of sensitivity to policy transfer andto policy fit across different contexts is impor-tant. In addition, critical reflective practice rep-resents a powerful pre-requisite.

Towards Robustness in Policy-making?

The concept of model policies is predicated ontheir being applicable on a pan-Scottish basis.This demands the transferability of standardpolicies across all the diverse local jurisdictionsin Scotland. This invokes consideration of theunderlying assumptions and conditions whichenable efficient and effective policy transfer.Discussions around the nature of policy trans-fer and lesson-drawing suggest a range of waysthat policy lessons can be learned in practice.Following Rose (1991), for example, the roleof model land use planning policies could thusvary. The existence of a model policy mightthen lead to ‘direct copying’ or simply pro-vide ‘inspiration’. Alternatively, model policiescould result in more formalised approaches topolicy adaptation, hybridisation or synthesis.The introduction of a bank of model policiescould thus provide a resource that could facili-tate each of these different learning styles andapproaches.

Whether or not a model policy is capable oftransfer across Scotland is dependent upon anumber of factors. These include an evidentsensitivity to the political, institutional, admin-istrative, social, economic and cultural condi-tions of different locales. To be effective themodel policies would have to be compatiblewith the specific context in which they are in-tended to operate. This would require a number

of pre-requisites to be in place. Here, the lessonsfrom research on urban regeneration policytransfer (Wolman and Page 2000) emphasisethe importance of better understanding why andhow the policies work in practice.

First, it is necessary that the context intowhich a particular model policy is to be appliedis comparable with the ‘exporting’ conditionsin which the policy was deemed to work. Here,then, it is important to be aware of the contextand conditions that are required for a particularmodel policy to work effectively. This necessi-tates that the available information is both ade-quate and accurate (Mossberger and Wolman2003; Wolman and Page 2001). Second, arobust assessment as to the similarity of theproblems being addressed and the policy goalsbeing tackled must be understood (Rose 1991).Third, considerable care is required in theidentification of best practice examples whichmay ‘showcase’ rather than ‘average’, andnot, therefore, be useful roadmaps for action(Wolman and Page 2001). This illustrates theextent to which care must be taken in under-standing ‘what works’, and acting on it.

An example from the Idaho TransportationDepartment (1998) in its guidance on develop-ing transportation policies is illustrative of thepossible use of model examples. In this NorthAmerican context, a number of policy pages areprovided which set out policy excerpts from lo-cal jurisdictions by way of highlighting issues,representing practice, sharing standards, and il-lustrating how policies are shaped in order tomeet the specific needs of particular communi-ties and places. Importantly, these policy pagescome with a clearly expressed ‘health warning’which states:

The examples given in this chapter are not in-

tended to be ideal policies. They were chosen be-

cause they are representative of what Idaho cities

are adopting. Be sure to adapt what you learn

from these examples to your local situation.

The use of models is clearly underpinned byexperience which suggests that there is a poten-tial for effective policy transfer. The importantpoint, however, is that the models are intendedto provide helpful ideas for practice, although


Peel and Lloyd 183

the details must then be sensitively tailored tofit the specific needs of each particular opera-tional context. The emphasis then is on criticallearning, and not on an instrumental ‘cut andpaste’ approach.

Pragmatism and Potential Pit-falls

In terms of the contemporary Third Way polit-ical economy, of immediate current concern iswhether or not different approaches to publicservice delivery are effective and efficient. Inthe UK, this line of thinking finds a particularlystrong articulation through the priorities set outby the Treasury (Gershon 2004). Here, a strongmanagerialist approach has been defined withrespect to public sector employment, publicsector procurement, and achieving best valuein public expenditure. Further, the current UKpublic policy modernisation discourse encom-passes a web of political commitments thatassert objectives relating to economic growth,efficiency and effectiveness, competitivetendering, value for money, and ‘fitness forpurpose’. From this perspective, land use plan-ning and development in the devolved polity ofScotland is integral to furthering broadersustainable development objectives and tosecuring stated economic growth policyaspirations. Simultaneously, the Scottish Ex-ecutive is seeking to secure environmental andsocial justice, and promote greater inclusion.However, efficiency and inclusion are notnecessarily compatible bed-fellows.

In pragmatic terms, the drafting of modelpolicies for use in local development plansis perceived as providing greater consistencyacross Scotland, realising efficiency gains in thepreparation of development plans, and releas-ing resources which can be diverted to managemore contentious aspects of development planpolicy and implementation issues. There are anumber of pit-falls associated with this idea.For example, there is a concern that an uncrit-ical mimetic approach is likely to underminethe effectiveness of the model policy idea indealing with the spatial heterogeneity of cir-cumstances and expectations across Scotland.Put crudely, ‘cut and paste’ would not appearto be appropriate to the modern circumstances

of land use planning and governance which de-mand greater subsidiarity of decision-makingand transparency in local decision-making.What is required is ‘cut and thrust’ in assert-ing the public interest involved.

The debates around the modernisation andreform of the arrangements for public policy-making and associated administration are rais-ing a screed of issues about the arrangements,procedures and dynamics of public policy-making in land use planning and development.Following Howard (2005), the pragmatic na-ture of the thinking around the initiative runsthe risk of ignoring the changing dynamicsand power relations in contemporary policyformulation. Hence, the proposed authoringof potential model policies by the ScottishExecutive and local planning authorities waschallenged by a wider and more diverse body ofpolicy activists. This would suggest that whilethere is recognition by central government ofthe changing expectations of a modernisingplanning system, this has to be understood inthe context of the evolving policy environmentand the behaviours of its constituent actors.Thus, demands for greater efficiency in landuse planning and development have to be moreeffectively mediated with new opportunities forgreater inclusion. Significantly, this extends tocreating openings within the stages of the pol-icy cycle which have tended to be the domainof the traditional public administrator.

From this perspective, Schon’s (1982, 1987)concept of the ‘reflective practitioner’ is ap-posite. Indeed, it continues to be identified asunderpinning the education of the professionalplanner (Discipline Network in Town Planning,1997). Although a contested concept, reflec-tive practices are currently very much in vogue.Indeed, Barnett (1997:39) remarked that ‘weare all reflective practitioners now’. Signifi-cantly, Ixer (1999) stated that the concept ofreflection has been used to ‘spearhead a rev-olution in adult learning’ and has become acritical element in the enhancement of ‘know-ing for doing.’ Moreover, reflective practice hasbeen defined as ‘a means by which practition-ers can develop a greater self-awareness aboutthe nature and impact of their performance,an awareness that creates opportunities for



professional growth and development’ (Oster-man and Kottkamp 1993:19). Critical reflectioncan promote a more sensitive understanding ofthe problems and outcomes that public policyseeks to deliver in specific circumstances.

An important objective of model policies wasto encourage the sharing of what works in prac-tice, and to secure certain efficiency gains. Yet,the development of a model policy necessitatesa critical approach to guard against any driftto policy homogenisation, and to continue tofoster critically reflective policy innovation andinvention. It is possible that the political im-perative to secure greater efficiency in pub-lic administration, in this instance through thepromotion of model policies, may serve to di-minish any potential advantage by detractingfrom reflective practice. While short-term ef-ficiency gains may be achieved through thedevelopment of a set of model policies, sucha pragmatic and potentially technocratic ap-proach should not undermine the need fora strong policy discipline which has regardto context, interpretation, implementation andevaluation. The interpretation of what consti-tutes an appropriate model policy is at leastas complex as the role of a development planin modern society. Skills of policy analysis interms of assessing the validity of particular poli-cies in a given circumstance will be critical ifland use planning policy-making is to deliversustainable development in practice.

Endnote

1. The cited observations are drawn from threesources. The Digest of Responses to the consul-tation paper collated by Geoff Peart Consulting(2002); the published scoping study on modelpolicies conducted for the Scottish Executive(Lloyd and Peel, 2004); and the unpublishedtranscripts of focus groups undertaken as partof the scoping research.

References

Allmendinger, P., J. Morphet and M. Tewdwr-Jones.

2005. ‘Devolution and the Modernisation of Lo-

cal Government: Prospects for Spatial Planning.’

European Planning Studies 13(3): 349–370.

Barnett, R. 1997. Higher Education: A CriticalBusiness. Buckingham: Society for Research into

Higher Education and Open University Press.

Bridgman, P. and G. Davis. 2003. ‘What Use is a Pol-

icy Cycle? Plenty, if the Aim is Clear.’ AustralianJournal of Public Administration 62(3): 98–102.

Campbell, H. 2003. ‘Reforming Planning Systems.’

Planning Theory and Practice 4(3): 347–348.

Colebatch, H.K. 2005. ‘Policy Analysis, Policy Prac-

tice and Political Science.’ Australian Journal ofPublic Administration 64(3): 14–23.

Cooke, P. and K. Morgan. 1998. The AssociationalEconomy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Department of the Environment. 2003. Mod-ernising Planning Processes ImplementationPlan. Belfast: Planning Service.

Discipline Network in Town Planning. 1997. Work-based Learning within Planning Education: AGood Practice Guide. London: University of

Westminster.

Dixon, J. 2003. ‘Planning in New Zealand: Legacy

of Ambivalence and Prospects for Repositioning.’

Planning Theory and Practice 4(3): 348–353.

Everett, S. 2003. ‘The Policy Cycle: Democratic Pro-

cess or Rational Paradigm Revisited?’ AustralianJournal of Public Administration 62(2): 65–70.

Geoff Peart Consulting. 2002. Review of StrategicPlanning: Digest of Responses to Consultation.

Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Central Research

Unit.

Gershon, P. 2004. Releasing Resources to the Front-line: Independent Review of Public Sector Ef-ficiency. HM Treasury, London: The Stationery

Office.

Giddens, A. 1998. The Third Way: The Renewal ofSocial Democracy. Oxford: Policy.

Government of Western Australia. 2000. PlanningSchemes Manual: Model Scheme Text GuidelinesAdvice and Information to Local Governmentsand others Preparing or Amending SchemesBased on the Model Scheme Text. Government

of Western Australia.

Grant, J. 2005. ‘Rethinking the Public Interest as a

Planning Concept.’ Plan Canada 45(2): 48–50.

Healey, P. 1988. ‘The British Town Planning Sys-

tem and Managing the Urban Environment.’ TownPlanning Review 59(4): 397–417.

Healey, P. 1997. Collaborative Planning: Shap-ing Places in Fragmented Societies. Basingstoke:

Macmillan Planning, Environment, Cities Series.

Howard, C. 2001. ‘Bureaucrats in the Social Policy

Process: Administrative Policy Entrepreneurs and

the Case of Working Nation.’ Australian Journalof Public Administration 60(3): 55–65.


Peel and Lloyd 185

Howard, C. 2005. ‘The Policy Cycle: A Model of

Post-Machiavellian Policy-making?’ AustralianJournal of Public Administration 64(3): 3–13.

Idaho Transportation Department. 1998. Trans-portation in Your Local Comprehensive Plan:A Guide for Local Government Officials. Idaho:

District Offices of the Idaho Transportation

Department.

Ixer, G. 1999. ‘There’s no such Thing as Reflection.’

British Journal of Social Work 29(4): 513–527.

Lee, S. 1999. ‘New Labour, New Centralism: The

Centralisation of Policy and the Devolution of Ad-

ministration in England and its Regions.’ PublicPolicy and Administration 15(2): 96–109.

Lloyd, M.G. and D. Peel. 2004. Model Policies inLand Use Planning in Scotland: A Scoping Study.

Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Social Research.

Midwinter, A. 1995. Local Government in Scotland:Reform or Decline? Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Ministry for the Environment. 2003. Drafting Issues,Objectives, Policies and Methods in Regional Pol-icy Statements and District Plans. Report by Ger-

ard Willis, Enfocus Limited, Wellington. New

Zealand: Ministry for the Environment.

Mossberger, K. and H. Wolman. 2003. ‘Policy Trans-

fer as a Form of Prospective Policy Evaluation:

Challenges and Recommendations.’ Public Ad-ministration and Review 63(4): 428–440.

Nadin, V. and J.B. Cullingworth. 2002. Town andCountry Planning in the UK. Thirteenth Edition.

London: Routledge.

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. 2002. Making-plans – Good Practice in Plan Preparation andManagement of the Development Plan Process.London: HMSO.

Osterman, K.F. and R.B. Kottkamp. 1993. Reflec-tive Practice for Educators: Improving School-ing through Professional Development. Newbury

Park, California: Corwin Press, Inc.

Parsons, W. 1995. Public Policy: An Introductionto the Theory and Practice of Policy Analysis,

London: Edward Elgar.

Planning Officers Society. 2004. Policies for Spa-tial Plans: Consultation Draft. London: Planning

Officers Society.

Poxon, J. 2000. ‘Solving the Development Plan Puz-

zle in Britain: Learning Lessons from History.’

Planning Perspectives 15: 73–89.

Rose, R. 1991. Lesson-drawing in Public Pol-icy: A Guide to Learning across Time andSpace. Chatham, New Jersey: Chatham House

Publishers.

Royal Town Planning Institute. 2001. A New Visionfor Planning. London: Royal Town Planning In-

stitute. URL: <http://www.rtpi.org.uk/about-the-

rtpi/vision.pdf>. Consulted 7 July 2005.

Schon, D. 1982. The Reflective Practitioner: HowProfessionals Think in Practice. New York: Basic

Books.

Schon, D. 1987. Educating the Reflective Practi-tioner. London: Jossey-Bass.

Scottish Executive. 2002. Scottish Planning Policy –SPP1 The Planning System. Edinburgh: Scottish

Executive.

Scottish Executive. 2005. Modernising the PlanningSystem White Paper. Edinburgh: Scottish Execu-

tive.

Taylor, N. 1998. Urban Planning Theory since 1947.London: Sage.

Wolman, H. and E. Page. 2000. Learning from theExperience of Others: Policy Transfer amongLocal Regeneration Partnerships. York: Joseph

Rowntree Foundation.

Wolman, H. and E. Page. 2001. ‘Policy Trans-

fer among Local Government: An Information-

Theory Approach.’ Governance: An Interna-tional Journal of Policy, Administration, and In-stitutions 15(4): 477–501.


The Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 186–197 doi:10.1111/j.1467-8500.2007.00527.x

RESEARCH AND EVALUATION

Managing Intergovernmental Relations in Australia: TheCase of Agricultural Policy Cooperation

Linda Courtenay BotterillThe Australian National University

In June 2004, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) announced changes to theguidelines and protocols of some 40 ministerial councils and intergovernmental fora whichcomprise the web of intergovernmental consultative arrangements. This article examines theimpact of the guidelines on the operation of the oldest of the sectoral ministerial councils,those relating to agriculture. The COAG guidelines aim to increase the strategic focus of thecouncils. However, in the case of agricultural policy there appears to have been a centralisingof policy control, both within state governments and towards the Commonwealth, whichundermines that objective and leaves the ministerial councils focusing on the more technicalissues which they are more effective at addressing.

Key words: ministerial councils, agricultural policy, COAG, intergovernmental cooperation

In 1990 Australia commenced what Fletcherand Walsh have described as a ‘remarkable pro-cess of reform of intergovernmental arrange-ments’ (Fletcher and Walsh 1992:591), kickedoff by Bob Hawke’s ‘New Federalism’. Al-though the process stumbled as a result of theKeating leadership challenge and proposals forfiscal reform foreshadowed by Hawke wereabandoned, a new focus on intergovernmentalcooperation emerged in 1992 with the establish-ment of the Council of Australian Governments(COAG). COAG provided a mechanism for thenegotiation of agreements such as the Intergov-ernmental Agreement on the Environment andmajor policies such as the National Competi-tion Policy, and was embraced by the Common-wealth and the states as a means of achievingeconomic reform and greater efficiency in thedelivery of government services. It providedboth the Commonwealth and state central agen-cies with a means of taking control of the pol-icy agenda and, Painter argues, ‘impose[d] onthe whole arena of intergovernmental relationsnew styles of joint decision-making’ (Painter2001:144). This new approach was then re-flected in guidelines developed by COAG for

the operation of the range of sectoral ministe-rial councils that were already in place. In June2004, COAG announced changes to the generalprinciples and broad protocols for the operationof these councils, focusing both on process andthe substance of ministerial council delibera-tions and seeking to improve the efficiency ofthe councils’ operations and to direct their ac-tivities to ‘items of strategic national signifi-cance’ (COAG 2004:Attachment E).

This article examines the impact of thesechanges on the operation of intergovernmen-tal cooperation on agriculture through the Pri-mary Industries Ministerial Council (PIMC)and the Natural Resource Management Minis-terial Council (NRMMC). The article draws onan analysis of the records and resolutions of theministerial council meetings held between July1993 and December 2004 as well as interviewswith key players involved with the agriculture-related ministerial councils at bureaucratic andpolitical levels, and close observers of the pro-cess from major interest groups. In spite of theinvolvement of COAG, or perhaps because ofit, the ministerial councils appear to be no morestrategic than they were prior to 1993 and, on


Botterill 187

many issues, seem to be less capable of address-ing major policy questions.

Galligan (1995:189) has referred to the rel-ative neglect of intergovernmental relations byscholars and this neglect is magnified when itcomes to the operation of the individual minis-terial councils. They receive a mention in pass-ing in discussion of intergovernmental relationsbut are rarely the subject of specific study. Min-isterial councils have been described as ‘some-what shadowy bodies, operating almost entirelyby unwritten working rules and general un-derstandings’ (Painter 1998:103). This articleattempts to address some of this gap in con-sideration of intergovernmental relations. Thecurrent Compendium of Commonwealth-stateMinisterial Councils lists more than 40 inter-governmental councils and other fora which de-velop policy and take joint action in specificpolicy areas (PM&C 2005). These councils areunderpinned by Standing Committees of Offi-cials, resulting in a considerable web of inter-governmental interaction, policy developmentand policy transfer. The councils address issuesas diverse as drought policy, developing na-tional responses to disease outbreaks or terror-ist attacks, reviewing Australia’s orchestras andcombating salinity. As such, they are an impor-tant part of the policy development process atboth Commonwealth and state level. The coun-cils vary in their level of transparency. Painternotes that ‘Intergovernmental relations arenotoriously opaque and hard to access for thepublic, with conventions of secrecy and bureau-cratic habits of confidentiality dominant mostof the time’ (Painter 1998:71). In recent years,more councils have made their deliberationspublic through their websites and/or throughissuing communiques following their meet-ings. Those councils with well established, non-rotating secretariats are more likely to publishtheir activities so the opportunities for obtain-ing information for detailed analysis of this areaof intergovernmental cooperation are improv-ing. The agriculture-related councils are suchcouncils, with a common well-established sec-retariat which provides communiques follow-ing council meetings and publishes the recordsand resolutions which can be obtained both inhard copy and via the internet.

This article is based on an analysis of therecords and resolutions of the agriculture-related ministerial council meetings from 1993to 2004 which sought to detect trends in thetypes of issues under consideration and to as-sess these against COAG’s intention to increasethe strategic focus of the ministerial councils.Interviews were also conducted in 2005 withparticipants in the former Australian Agricul-ture Council (AAC) and its successor bod-ies, the Agriculture and Resource Manage-ment Council of Australia and New Zealand(ARMCANZ), the Primary Industries Ministe-rial Council (PIMC) and the Natural ResourceManagement Ministerial Council (NRMMC)and with relevant interest groups. Participantsrepresented political and bureaucratic playersin central agencies and line departments andinterest groups – at both Commonwealth andstate level. All interviewees participated in theresearch on the basis of anonymity.

The Agriculture Ministerial Council: FromAAC to PIMC and NRMMC

The ministerial council on agriculture is the old-est, and arguably the most successful (Grogan1968:309; Wiltshire 1977:215; Gerritsen1991:277) of the sectoral ministerial councilarrangements. The Australian AgricultureCouncil (AAC) was established in 1934 fol-lowing a meeting chaired by CommonwealthMinister for Commerce, Dr Earle Page. Pageset out four issues for discussion:

1. Means to make it possible for Australia tospeak with one voice on agricultural andmarketing matters;

2. Determination of a definite policy in regardto international and especially intra-Empiremarketing relations;

3. Formulation of a definite policy on wheat,both immediate and ultimate; and

4. The finalising of a basis of a rural rehabilita-tion scheme through relief of farmers’ debts(cited in Grogan 1968:298).

The agricultural ministerial council operatedunder the name Australian Agricultural Council


188 Managing Intergovernmental Relations in Australia June 2007

from 1934 until 1992. Its membership remainedrelatively stable and it met twice a year withscope for additional special sessions to ad-dress various crises that arose, such as thewheat deregulation and dairy crises of 1989(Gerritsen 1991:286-289). Throughout the1950s and 1960s the council deliberated overAustralia’s complex and highly intervention-ist agricultural policy, negotiating details ofindustry stabilisation schemes as well as dis-cussing international export agreements suchas the long standing meat agreement betweenAustralia and the UK. Writing in the late 1950s,Grogan reported that the council was very suc-cessful at arriving at agreement on ‘matterswhere high government policy is involved’ andthat a ‘large number of extremely important andcomprehensive measures. . . provide evidenceof government action following Council agree-ment’ (Grogan 1968:308).

By the 1980s and early 1990s, rural policywas dominated by adjustment concerns associ-ated with the impact of deregulation and the dis-mantling of the array of stabilisation schemesstatutory marketing arrangements and mini-mum price schemes that had developed prior tothe 1970s. The council remained an importantforum for Commonwealth-state cooperation onagricultural policy, particularly as the main pol-icy instruments for facilitating structural adjust-ment. The various rural adjustment schemes,were funded through Section 96 grants fromthe Commonwealth to the states and requiredconsiderable state cooperation in their admin-istration. The council also provided a mecha-nism for dealing with cross-border issues suchas environmental issues and pest and diseaseincursions.

In 1992 the council recognised the involve-ment of New Zealand in its meetings by chang-ing its name to the Agriculture Council ofAustralia and New Zealand (AAC 1992:59);however, only one meeting was held under thisname. In December 1992, the newly formedCOAG decided that there was a need to ra-tionalise the ministerial councils which hadproliferated since the 1970s to 45 separate con-sultative bodies. The Agriculture Council wasexpanded to become the Agriculture and Re-source Management Council of Australia and

New Zealand (ARMCANZ) and picked up is-sues of soil and water management, as wellas the management of the rural adjustmentscheme which had previously been handled bya separate Rural Adjustment Scheme MinistersMeeting. The amalgamation of agricultural andresource issues was set in the context of policyconcern in the early 1990s with ecologicallysustainable development policies:

The rationale for this wider Council arrangement

is the belief that such integration will be necessary

to sustain the base for the agricultural sector as

well as longer term sustainable use and manage-

ment of natural resources (ARMCANZ 1993:26).

At the Commonwealth level the integration ofthe ministerial councils also sat comfortablywith administrative arrangements which hadseen the Department of Primary Industry andparts of the Department of Resources and En-ergy amalgamated into the Department of Pri-mary Industries and Energy in the machineryof government changes in 1987.

The December 1992 meeting of COAGagreed a set of protocols for the operation ofministerial councils in order to ‘guide the ef-ficient management of intergovernmental fora’(COAG 1992). In June 1993 COAG announcedits decision to halve the number of ministerialcouncils. In announcing this decision, Heads ofGovernment stated that:

The decision will reduce costs associated with

providing administrative support for such Coun-

cils and costs associated with Ministerial and of-

ficer travel and accommodation at meetings.

This rationalisation will also improve the qual-

ity of policy development emanating from these

Councils. Bringing together interrelated func-

tions and activities in this way will result in more

integrated policy development and will enable

Ministerial Councils to take a strategic view of the

issues beyond the interests of a particular group

(COAG 1993).

Interviewees reported that the smaller jurisdic-tions were particularly keen to see such a ratio-nalisation of the councils.

At its first meeting in July 1993, ARMCANZagreed that it would operate in conformity with


Botterill 189

the COAG protocols which covered:

• representation of constituent governments;• the development of meeting agendas and the

provision of agenda papers;• arrangement of officers’ meetings;• announcement of resolutions;• liaison between councils;• involvement of the Australian Local Govern-

ment Association;• involvement of other Countries (in the case

of ARMCANZ, New Zealand as a full vot-ing member and Papua New Guinea as anobserver);

• efficiency of council operations; and• consultation with interest groups (ARM-

CANZ 1993:31-33).

Twenty-one meetings were held under theARMCANZ structure with the last in 2001.

In November 2000, COAG commissioned se-nior officials to review ‘the scope for stream-lining and rationalising the number of Ministe-rial Councils’ (COAG 2000). In December thatyear, the Prime Minister proposed the formationof a Natural Resource Management Councilto subsume ARMCANZ along with two otherministerial councils. The ARMCANZ meet-ing in March 2001 supported the review ofthe number of councils but expressed concernover the proposal to incorporate agriculturalpolicy into a larger umbrella arrangement. Thecouncil resolved to write to the Prime Minis-ter indicating that ‘it would be inappropriatefor [agriculture-related] issues to be absorbedinto some form of new overall NRM MinisterialCouncil’ (ARMCANZ 2001:27). In June 2001,the revised council structure was announced in-cluding the establishment of the Natural Re-source Management Ministerial Council (NR-MMC), a separate Primary Industries Minis-terial Council (PIMC) to address agricultureand fisheries industry and production issues,and an Environment, Protection and HeritageMinisterial Council. It was agreed that the NR-MMC would be ‘the senior overarching Coun-cil (for those matters that relate to natural re-source management issues) which dealt with . . .

cross-over of issues between related MinisterialCouncils’ (PIMC 2002). The NRMMC wouldcomprise two ministers from each jurisdiction.

For the Commonwealth this is the Minister forthe Environment and the Minister for Agricul-ture, Fisheries and Forestry who jointly chairthe council meetings.

The June 2001 COAG meeting also decidedto review the Broad Protocols and GeneralPrinciples for the Operation of MinisterialCouncils. These were finalised in June 2004with COAG announcing that the revised proto-cols and principles would result in:

• Ministerial council agendas having a greaterfocus on strategic issues;

• improved reporting and information flows byministerial councils on key issues and out-comes; and

• regular reviews by ministerial councils oftheir own functions (COAG 2004).

Findings

This research project set out to determinewhat, if any, impact the COAG guidelinesfor the operation of the councils have had onthe Commonwealth-state consultative arrange-ments for agriculture, both in terms of the oper-ation of the council and the nature of the itemsunder discussion, and particularly whether theagendas have reflected the intention to becomemore strategic, or more ‘outcomes focused’ (in-terview). The latter point is addressed first, fol-lowed by a discussion of the actual functioningof the council. Finally, some conclusions aredrawn about the usefulness of the ministerialcouncils as a mechanism for intergovernmentalcooperation in agriculture.

The findings are based on an analysis ofthe items that are reported in the publiclyavailable Record and Resolutions of the meet-ings of ARMCANZ, PIMC and NRMMC. The605 agenda items considered excluded out-of-session items, reports on standing committeedeliberations, financial reports on the opera-tion of the councils and standing committeesand discussion of the venue for the subsequentmeetings. The agenda items were grouped intobroad categories. These categories necessar-ily involve a degree of subjective judgmentas some items could be classified in a num-ber of groups. They do, however, give a broad



Table 1. Number of Agenda Items by Topic 1993-2004

Topics ARMCANZ PIMC NRMMC TOTAL

Agricultural and veterinary chemicals and residues 18 0 0 18Animal and Plant Health 14 4 0 18Animal welfare 16 14 1 31Biodiversity 0 0 7 7Biosecurity and import risk assessment 6 8 0 14Biotechnology 6 7 0 13Drought 14 9 0 23Food Industry Issues 22 5 0 27Greenhouse 2 2 2 6Indigenous issues 4 3 5 12Industry specific issues 58 29 9 96Miscellaneous items 17 2 0 19National Competition Policy 7 0 0 7Natural Heritage Trust 5 0 5 10Natural resource management/sustainable mgt 9 0 9 18Operational Issues (including consultation) 8 2 15 25Other environmental issues 12 0 18 30Pests and diseases 67 27 12 106Quarantine and inspection 11 1 0 12Research and development 28 2 1 31Rangelands management 7 0 0 7Rural adjustment and development 5 1 0 6Salinity 3 0 8 11Trade related issues 9 8 0 17Vegetation management 1 0 1 2Water reform 28 0 11 39

TOTAL 377 124 104 605

indication of the focus of the councils’ delib-erations. It should be noted that the quantity ofagenda items does not necessarily reflect theamount of time spent on a particular topic. Forexample, since PIMC was formed, drought hasaccounted for nine agenda items out of 124 buthas taken up possibly 90% of discussion time(interviews). A further example of the possi-ble pitfalls of relying on the records and res-olutions as an indication of the importance ofagenda items is provided by the first meetingof ARMCANZ in July 1993. The meeting isfamous for its brevity – council managed todeal with 21 agenda items in little more than anhour. With these caveats, the distribution of top-ics nevertheless provides an idea of the issueswhich council members consider of sufficientimport to be discussed in this forum and can il-lustrate trends in the types of issues under con-sideration. Table 1 provides a summary of thefindings.

The Councils and Strategic Issues

An analysis of the agenda items of ARMCANZand PIMC/NRMMC and the interviews con-ducted in the preparation of this article suggestthat the objective of a greater strategic focus forthese councils is not being met. Ministers arepaying less attention to the councils as strate-gic policy-making bodies (interviews) and thereal value of PIMC/NRMMC and ARMCANZlies in its more technical work. Of the 605agenda items considered by the three councilsbetween 1993 and 2004, nearly a quarter weretaken up with discussion of pests and diseases,and animal welfare. Interviewees were almostunanimous in their assessment that the councilswere very useful as a mechanism for address-ing technical cross-border issues like quaran-tine or the development of nationwide emer-gency responses to disease or pest incursions.Among the issues discussed, and on which cost


Botterill 191

sharing agreements were reached, werebranched broomrape, grapevine leaf rust, fireb-light, imported red fire ants, papaya fruit fly, cit-rus canker and Newcastle disease. The nationalFoot and Mouth Disease simulation, Minotaur,is a good example of the benefits of nationalcooperation on agricultural policy and the rolethat councils can play in facilitating that coop-eration.

The topics accounting for the top three mostfrequent PIMC agenda items are pests anddiseases (21.8% of agenda items), industryspecific issues (23.4%) and animal welfare(11.3%). Of the industry specific topics, onlyone quarter could realistically be described asstrategic, involving long term directions for in-dustry rather than information items, progressreports on implementation of policies or devel-opment of technical standards. On animal wel-fare, layer hen housing and the tail docking ofdogs for cosmetic purposes each account forabout a third of the agenda items on this topic.These are specific industry management is-sues which could not be described as having‘strategic national significance’ as required bythe 2004 protocols. Interviewees reported thatanimal welfare was taking up an increasingamount of time in council. PIMC itself was ob-viously concerned enough to include an agendaitem at its April 2003 meeting on the coun-cil’s role on animal welfare. The meeting res-olutions note ‘PIMC’s well-established role onanimal welfare issues relating to production an-imals’ but that its charter did not extend toresponsibility for non-production animal wel-fare and that these issues were more relevant toother councils (PIMC 2002:58). Council agreedthat its role on non-production animal wel-fare issues be limited to ‘significant issues thatwould clearly benefit from a national approach’(PIMC 2002:59).

Issues that might appear to be more strategicin nature such as rural adjustment and devel-opment, and agricultural research and develop-ment, have received less attention from PIMCthan they did from ARMCANZ. The fourthmost frequent agenda item for PIMC has beendrought which is perhaps not surprising as thecurrent drought began to set in about the timeof the council’s first meeting in May 2002.

Interviewees considered that generally PIMCis not good at addressing strategic policy ques-tions. Failure to make any real progress onreforming Australia’s National Drought Policyis a good example, with the lack of decisiveaction by council resulting in the NationalFarmers’ Federation’s calling on the Common-wealth government to take over full controlof drought relief programs (National FarmersFederation 2005). Progress in the past onpolicy issues such as statutory marketingarrangements were possible because suchschemes were based in legislation. More es-oteric issues which ‘do not involve money oran Act’ but require strategic thinking, such asresponding to greenhouse issues, are muchharder for councils to address (interview).

NRMMC’s agenda appears to be more fo-cussed on strategic issues. However, intervie-wees report that decisions on the ‘really big’issues, such as the National Action Plan onSalinity and Water Quality and the NationalWater Initiative, tend to be taken outside of thecouncil. In these cases, the core parameters areset by the Prime Minister through COAG withthe council then handling the details of imple-mentation. This can be seen in the ‘Immediatepriorities’ which were discussed by the NR-MMC at its first meeting. These were:

i. implementing all aspects of the NationalAction Plan for Salinity and Water Quality;

ii. progressing the COAG Water ReformAgenda; and

iii. developing agreed Commonwealth andstate delivery and funding arrangements forthe extension of the Natural Heritage Trust(NRMMC 2001:15-16).

The first two of these items were COAG initia-tives, the third is a Commonwealth program setup in 1997. Although the NRMMC has respon-sibility for these big issues, its role has been fo-cussed on implementation of parts of the agendarather than policy development. It would seemthat the councils are unlikely to become morestrategic in their focus as the strategic issuesare often politically ‘too hard’ (interview). Oneinterviewee noted that COAG is a ‘more polit-ical’ forum than the ministerial councils and



therefore better able to handle ‘grey’ issues,particularly those which are ‘constitutionallymessy’.

Operation of the Councils

PIMC and NRMMC, like ARMCANZ be-fore them, have a permanent secretariat withinthe Commonwealth Department of Agriculture,Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF). The guidelinesissued by COAG have been incorporated intothe operating procedures for the councils and,apart from some concerns from state partic-ipants about the timeliness of some agendadocuments, the secretariat operates within theCOAG guidelines.

There is a perception among some state-based participants that issues of concern to theCommonwealth dominate the agenda and thatstate members of the councils need to be ‘veryproactive’ to get an item on the agenda (in-terviews). Part of the problem appears to bethe resource imbalance between the Common-wealth and state members of the councils. Thelow level of resources at state level could ex-plain the perception at more senior levels thatbriefings and agenda papers from DAFF werenot received in good time while line officersfelt that the COAG requirements were beingmet. It is possible that slowness in handling thepapers and accompanying briefing is a reflec-tion of inadequate resources at state level ratherthan tardiness on the part of DAFF. The limitedresources available at state level could alsoreflect the states’ lukewarm view of the useful-ness of the process, with some seeing prepa-ration for ministerial council meetings as a‘part-time activity after the real work is done’(interview). The ministerial councils were de-scribed by one interviewee as a Commonwealth‘industry’. It was remarked during the course ofthis research that officials see the councils as a‘rubber stamp’ for issues generated at depart-mental level and agreed by standing commit-tee. As indicated above, the agriculture-relatedcouncils have proved very useful for collabo-ration on technical, cross-border issues wherethe Commonwealth’s role is not clear cut – butit is debatable whether ministers and their en-tourage of advisers and public servants actually

need to meet face to face twice a year to achieveoutcomes in these areas.

When it first moved to improve the opera-tion of ministerial councils, COAG emphasisedthe importance of ministers attending thesemeetings with ‘whole of government cover’,in other words, the authority to commit theirgovernments to whatever policies or programsemerged from the council meeting. There aretwo sides to this issue. Cheryl Saunders haspointed to the limits on executive accountabilitythat arise from ministers committing their gov-ernments to particular courses of action withoutadequate executive or parliamentary scrutiny(Saunders 1991:49-50). This perspective sug-gests that ministerial councils are useful as con-sultative fora but that, as independent jurisdic-tions, states should take final policy decisionsthrough their own parliamentary processes andnot be bound to the outcomes arising from inter-governmental interaction. The alternative per-spective came through more clearly in the inter-views, and that is the desirability of ministersattending meetings with authority to commitin order to progress important strategic policyissues. The COAG guidelines take the latter po-sition and stipulate that:

It is the responsibility of Ministers to ensure

they are in a position to appropriately represent

their government at Council meetings. This is of

particular importance where resolutions require

commitment, especially financial commitment,

from respective governments (PIMC 2004:71).

This has not always occurred and was high-lighted by interviewees as a particular problemin the case of drought policy where ministers donot come to meetings with the mandate to com-mit funding. Interviewees reported that, on oc-casion, this lack of mandate was strategic, withministers choosing not to raise issues with theirState Treasuries before the council meets.

The Councils as a Mechanism ofIntergovernmental Cooperation

Interviewee assessments of the agriculture-related councils ranged from ‘pretty useless’ to‘worthwhile for non-controversial technical is-sues’. Although they may fail to meet COAG’s


Botterill 193

aspirations for high level strategic policy devel-opment, they nevertheless seem to be of somevalue. They have a role, acknowledged by inter-viewees, in providing a mechanism for policytransfer between states as well as providing auseful forum for information exchange, suchas advising states of developments in interna-tional trade negotiations, and as a mechanismfor bringing Commonwealth and state minis-ters face to face to build personal relationshipsand a basis for policy cooperation. The pub-lic service network underpinning PIMC andNRMMC is very strong with a number of of-ficials, now at senior levels, having been in-volved with the standing committees and work-ing with each other for up to 20 years. It wasobserved that conflict between council mem-bers was often for public consumption and thatthere was cooperation and constructive policydebate taking place behind closed doors. How-ever, it was agreed that when there was hos-tility within the council, the process could bea ‘waste of time’. Until recently, agriculturalpolicy in Australia was not particularly parti-san (Malcolm 1989; Cockfield 1997), develop-ing incrementally with little noticeable shift indirection when there was a change of govern-ment. This no doubt facilitated cooperative ar-rangements between Commonwealth and stategovernments even when they belonged to oth-erwise opposing political parties. However, thepolitics within the agriculture-related councilsat present have been described as ‘worse thanthey’ve ever been’ (interview). This has impli-cations for the councils’ capacity to engage inconstructive, strategic policy debate.

This certainly seems to have been the caseat recent meetings on drought policy reformwhich has limped along for over two years sincethe Commonwealth government set up a taskforce to undertake public consultations as inputinto a major review of policy. Drought policyprovides a good example of the current limita-tions of the ministerial council process and sug-gests that as a mechanism of intergovernmentalcollaboration PIMC is not as effective as its pre-decessor bodies were in achieving major policyprogress. The National Drought Policy, whichmarked a major paradigm shift in the nationalpolicy approach to drought, was negotiated

and agreed through the AAC/ACANZ1 in 1992.This agreement has formed the basis of droughtpolicy since then and its underlying princi-ples continue to receive ministerial endorse-ment (for further detail on Australia’s NationalDrought Policy, see Botterill 2003). Painternotes that in the area of intergovernmentalrelations,

There is a peculiar mix of mundane detail and

high principle, so intergovernmental arenas are

likely to exhibit forms of behaviour that swing un-

predictably from unanimous and smooth agree-

ment to rancour, threats and name calling (Painter

1998:24).

The context of this observation suggests thatthe broad direction can be easily agreed whilethe ‘nitty-gritty’ brings out differences. In thecase of agricultural policy-making the moretechnical level decisions appear to be capa-ble of amicable resolution. However, the bigpicture issues cause difficulty and increas-ingly are being handled at the level of COAG,like the National Water Initiative, or not re-solved satisfactorily, as has been the case withdrought.

One area in which the ministerial councils,and certainly their standing committees, maybe valuable is in the area of policy transfer.As Dolowitz and Marsh (2000:7) note, ‘policy-makers increasingly look to other political sys-tems for knowledge and ideas about institu-tions, programs and policies and about how theywork in other jurisdictions’. This transfer of-ten occurs between sub-national governmentsand between tiers of government (Dolowitzand Marsh 2000:12). Interviewees reported thatthe states found the council process useful forexchanging ideas and ‘comparing notes’ andthis is not surprising as the process providesmany of the characteristics common to policytransfer:

• it occurs within an epistemic or policy com-munity (Rose 1991:6);

• it occurs at both political and bureaucraticlevel (Dolowitz and Marsh 1996:345); and

• inspiration for alternative policy approachesis often sought close to home (Rose 1993:96-97).



Policy learning has occurred within the coun-cil, with the states and Commonwealth govern-ments sharing information and policy lessonsand providing the basis for agreement in areasin which national policy was seen as desirable.For example, in the 1980s, the council provideda forum for the negotiation of a single nationalregistration system for agricultural and veteri-nary chemicals based on the system in operationin Queensland and replacing the different state-based schemes. As well as exchanging ideaswith each other, the states see the ministerialcouncils as an opportunity to ‘find out what’sgoing on’ (interview).

The splitting of ARMCANZ into NRMMCand PIMC has had a ‘profound effect’ on agri-cultural policy-making (interviews). The ratio-nale offered in 1993 for the formation of thelarger council incorporating natural resourcemanagement and agricultural production issueswould appear to still hold true:

The emergence of new and varied demands for the

use and management of land, water and agricul-

tural resources from a wide range of commercial

and environmental interest groups has lead to an

increased focus on resource allocation, the qual-

ity of resources and the need to pursue agricul-

tural practices that are both environmentally and

economically sustainable over the longer term.

Managers are increasingly looking to the benefits

that can be derived from adopting whole systems

approaches rather than a single resource man-

agement philosophy to the solution of agricul-

tural and natural resource management problems

(ARMCANZ 1993:26).

The NRMMC was intended to have thisfocus:

This new Council brings together, for the first

time, Ministers with responsibilities for natural

resources, environment and primary industries,

and will provide the basis for a more focused,

integrated and nationally consistent approach to

NRM policies and activities across Australia.

This structure will enable Australia to focus on

the array of natural resources management chal-

lenges facing the nation, and provide an oppor-

tunity to more strategically and collectively im-

plement action to bring about the fundamental

challenges required (NRMMC 2001:11).

A number of interviewees reported, however,that the agricultural production issues are notreceiving the prominence in NRMMC that theydeserve and that ‘sustainability’ appears to havebeen interpreted as ‘conservation’. Commit-ment to the highly acclaimed Landcare programwas reported to have waned with less focuson practical, on-farm issues (interviews). Oneinterviewee suggested that sustainable agricul-ture was the issue that the NRMMC was the‘least equipped to discuss’ and as a result it hadmore or less dropped off the natural resourceuse agenda. A further anomaly arising from thesplit in ARMCANZ is that drought policy andwater policy are being driven by different min-isterial councils with little obvious recognitionthat the two should be closely related. This ap-pears to be because, in spite of the rhetoric ofthe National Drought Policy, drought relief islooking increasingly like a farm subsidy pro-gram rather than a program of transition to selfreliance and improved risk management.

At a more practical level, the split has notbeen clean with duplication of some issuesand the subsequent need for coordination be-tween the standing committees, for exampleon forests and environmental services, fire anteradication, and wild dog and fox management.There are also signs that PIMC is trying tore-engage with natural resource managementissues, opening a further area for duplication.This coordination is not necessarily onerous asthe membership of the two ministerial councilsoverlaps substantially.

Centralising of Policy Control

Intergovernmental relations in Australia havebeen described as ‘executive federalism’(Sharman 1991) with heads of government atthe centre of the arrangements. This positionhas been strengthened in recent years throughthe formation of COAG and its increased in-terest in the activities of the sectoral ministe-rial councils. The growth of central agencies inthe states in the 1990s provided the capacityfor the development of COAG as a peak in-tergovernmental policy-making forum (Painter2001:143). Once COAG was established, it isnot surprising that it sought to take greater


Botterill 195

control of the ministerial councils, as evidencedby its intervention in the structure of the coun-cils and the development of guidelines for theiroperation. For the states, the COAG guidelinesprovided an opportunity to strengthen oversightwithin their own jurisdictions by requiring min-isters to have whole of government cover beforemaking commitments at ministerial council. AsDavis points out in his study of the Goss gov-ernment’s development of a strong Cabinet Of-fice in Queensland, the development of statecentral agencies was intended to provide ex-ecutive control over the policy agenda (Davis1995:141) – they were unlikely to allow this tobe undermined by agreements struck in minis-terial council meetings. It should be noted thatprior to the formation of COAG there had beensome ad hoc limits on the impact of ministerialcouncil decisions in some jurisdictions, includ-ing in Queensland under the Bjelke Petersengovernment.2 However, the COAG reforms sig-nalled a more systematic exercise of executivecontrol over policy. It has been suggested thatthe state central agencies were the main driversof this reform, seeking greater oversight ofcouncil activities and also consolidation into asmaller number of councils (interview). The in-volvement of the central agencies was also seenas a means for ensuring that councils worked to-gether on areas of common interest. It was sug-gested during the course of this research thatCOAG is more likely to make progress than theministerial councils which are seen as becom-ing bogged down with entrenched issues thattake forever to resolve (interviews). The layerhen cage issue within the agriculture councilsseems to be a case in point.

The establishment of Cabinet Offices andwhole-of-government approaches to policy de-velopment in the states, first by Nick Greinerin NSW and then subsequently by other states,signalled a centralising of policy control. Thiswas both a result of and a contributor to the suc-cess of COAG as a mechanism for intergovern-mental cooperation on major policy issues suchas transport reform, competition and the envi-ronment. Central agencies in the states becameconcerned about line departments dealing di-rectly with their federal counterparts on policyissues and sought to impose discipline which

‘reduced the opportunity for independent ac-tion by agencies’ (Davis 1998:160). It also pro-vided an opportunity to increase coordination inpolicy areas which cut across portfolios. Whileallowing the premiers to rein in ministers andagencies and ensure that they were not commit-ting states to policy through ministerial coun-cils without whole of government backing, thistrend is not without risk for state governments.

Although COAG has allowed state govern-ments to work together and provided opportu-nities for cooperation on major issues of na-tional importance, the forum remains largelya creature of the Prime Minister. The PrimeMinister controls the agenda and determines ifand when COAG will meet (Fenna 2004:182)– in the early years of the Howard government,the Council ‘met rarely and briefly’ (Odgers2003:329) This study suggests that the newarrangements have seen COAG take controlof the genuinely strategic issues leaving theministerial councils to implement the decisionstaken by heads of government and to handletechnical concerns that were in the past morelikely to have been handled by officials throughstanding committee arrangements. Given thePrime Minister’s pivotal role in COAG (Fenna2004:182), it is a reasonable conclusion thatthe strategic issues implemented by the min-isterial councils will be those of key impor-tance to the Commonwealth government. How-ever, there remain areas in which the stateshave a clear constitutional responsibility, suchas land clearing. Unless the Commonwealth isprepared to bypass the states through funding,it is limited in how much it can force state ac-tion. Interviewees provided examples of issueson which concerted state action had preventeditems from appearing on the COAG agenda, inspite of pressure from the National Party andthe National Farmers Federation for their con-sideration.

Conclusions

On paper, the COAG guidelines are about in-creasing the effectiveness of ministerial coun-cils by increasing their strategic focus and em-powering ministers to make policy decisions. In



the area of agricultural policy, COAG involve-ment in council activities appears to have hadthe opposite effect. Grogan’s assessment of theAAC referred to above suggested that the agri-culture council had been effective on issues of‘high government policy’ from the outset, withissues such as pests and diseases, which havetaken up so much of the agenda recently, leftto the standing committee (Grogan 1968:300).A high level participant in the AAC observedthat the council was a good forum for discus-sion, resulting in good policy. It was not a top-down forum with the Commonwealth dominat-ing nor did it result in ‘lowest common denom-inator’ outcomes. PIMC, however, seems to beat its most effective when handling technical,cross-border issues of a non-controversial na-ture. On the big issues, such as drought pol-icy, ministers do not all come to meetings withthe backing of their cabinets to make the major,mostly funding, decisions required to effect realreform. The strategic policy issues that are han-dled by NRMMC have been initiated by COAG,with the former having some role in implemen-tation but not in the development of these policyinitiatives.

Contrary to Gerritsen’s findings that theAgriculture Council is of most value to thestate members rather than the Commonwealth(Gerritsen 1991:282), this research suggeststhat PIMC is predominantly a vehicle for theCommonwealth government to pursue its agri-cultural policy agenda. COAG appears to betaking a larger role in progressing policy issuesin agriculture with the Prime Minister and hisoffice taking a close interest in particularly sen-sitive issues such as animal welfare associatedwith the live export trade, drought, water andnative vegetation (interview). The Common-wealth Secretariat is well resourced and man-aged. By contrast, the states are more likely tomanage the process through small units whoare only involved in council issues on a parttime basis. In spite of COAG’s guidelines, stateparticipants continue to bemoan the short leadtime provided by the secretariat in the circula-tion of agenda papers and the volume of paper.Some also expressed difficulty at getting issuesof state concern on to the council agenda. Gen-erally state participants could see little value

in putting too much effort into restructuringthe process – they attend the councils becausethey exist but there was no overwhelming feel-ing that they were a crucial part of intergov-ernmental relations. Sharman wrote of the oldPremiers’ Conferences that ‘the fact of theirmeeting is more important than the substanceof their discussions’ (Sharman 1991:28). If theapparent centralising of policy control towardscentral agencies at the state level and towardsthe Prime Minister through COAG continues,in the future this may be true of the agricultureministerial councils. This may not necessarilybe a bad outcome for policy coordination, par-ticularly in areas such as environmental man-agement which cross portfolios, and if the coun-cils remain a mechanism for policy transfer andfor coordination on portfolio-specific techni-cal issues. However, it raises some questionsabout the trend toward further centralisation ofpolicy-making in the Australian federation.

Endnotes

1. Agricultural Council of Australian and NewZealand.

2. My thanks to John Wanna for this point.

References

AAC [Australian Agricultural Council]. 1992.

Record and Resolutions: 137th Meeting, Fre-mantle. 14 February 1992. Commonwealth of

Australia.

ARMCANZ [Agriculture and Resource Manage-

ment Council of Australia and New Zealand].

1993. Record and Resolutions: First Meeting, Al-ice Springs 29 July 1993. Canberra: Common-

wealth of Australia.

ARMCANZ [Agriculture and Resource Manage-

ment Council of Australia and New Zealand].

2001. Record and Resolutions: Nineteenth Meet-ing Wellington 9 March 2001. Canberra: Com-

monwealth of Australia.

Botterill, L.C. 2003. ‘Uncertain Climate: The Re-

cent History of Drought Policy in Australia.’ Aus-tralian Journal of Politics and History 49(1): 61–

74.

COAG [Council of Australian Governments]. 1992.

Council of Australian Governments Commu-nique: 7 December 1992. Canberra. URL: <http:


Botterill 197

//www.coag.gov.au/meetings/071292/index.

htm>.

COAG [Council of Australian Governments]. 1993.

Council of Australian Governments Commu-nique: 8-9 June 1993. Canberra. URL: <http:

//www.coag.gov.au/meetings/080693/index.

htm>.

COAG [Council of Australian Governments].

2000. Council of Australian Governments’ Com-munique: 3 November 2000. Canberra. URL:

<http://www.coag.gov.au/meetings/031100/

index.htm>.

COAG [Council of Australian Governments].

2004. Council of Australian GovernmentsCommunique: 25 June 2004. Canberra. URL:

<http://www.coag.gov.au/meetings/250604/

index.htm>.

Cockfield, G. 1997. ‘Rural Policy: More of the

Same?’ In Policy and Change: The Howard Man-date, eds S. Prasser and G. Starr. Marrickville,

NSW: Hale and Iremonger.

Davis, G. 1995. A Government of Routines: Exec-utive Coordination in an Australian State. South

Melbourne: Macmillan Education.

Davis, G. 1998. ‘Carving Out Policy Space for State

Government in a Federation: The Role of Co-

ordination.’ Publius: The Journal of Federalism28(4): 147–164.

Dolowitz, D. and D. Marsh. 1996. ‘Who Learns What

from Whom: A Review of the Policy Transfer Lit-

erature.’ Political Studies 44: 343–357.

Dolowitz, D.P. and D. Marsh. 2000. ‘Learning from

Abroad: The Role of Policy Transfer in Con-

temporary Policy-Making.’ Governance 13(1):

5–24.

Fenna, A. 2004. Australian Public Policy. Second

Edition. Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Longman.

Fletcher, C. and C. Walsh. 1992. ‘Reform of Inter-

governmental Relations in Australia: The Politics

of Federalism and the Non-politics of Manageri-

alism.’ Public Administration 70: 591–616.

Galligan, B. 1995. A Federal Republic: Australia’sConstitutional System of Government. Cam-

bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gerritsen, R. 1991. ‘Rural Policy.’ In Intergovern-mental Relations and Public Policy, eds B. Gal-

ligan, O. Hughes and C. Walsh. North Sydney:

Allen & Unwin, 277–291.

Grogan, F.O. [1958] 1968. ‘The Australian Agri-

cultural Council: A Successful Experiment in

Commonwealth-State Relations.’ In Readingsin Australian Government, ed. C.A. Hughes.

St Lucia: University of Queensland Press,

297–317.

Malcolm, L.R. 1989. ‘Rural Industry Policies.’ In

From Fraser to Hawke, eds B.W. Head and A.

Patience. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire, 132–

158.

National Farmers Federation. 2005. ‘The Prime Min-

ister Must Act on Drought Reform.’ News ReleaseNR 58/05. Canberra 19 May 2005.

NRMMC [Natural Resource Management Ministe-

rial Council]. 2001. Record and Resolutions: FirstMeeting, Canberra 31 August 2001. Canberra:

Commonwealth of Australia

Odgers, B. 2003. ‘Parliamentary and Intergovern-

mental Processes’ In Managing Australia’s Envi-ronment, eds S. Dovers and S. Wild River. Syd-

ney: The Federation Press, 318–337.

Painter, M. 1998. Collaborative Federalism: Eco-nomic Reform in Australia in the 1990s. Mel-

bourne: Cambridge University Press.

Painter, M. 2001. ‘Multi-level Governance and the

Emergence of Collaborative Federal Institutions

in Australia.’ Policy and Politics 29(2): 137–

150.

PIMC [Primary Industries Ministerial Council].

2002. Record and Resolutions: First Meeting, Ho-bart, 2 May 2002. Canberra: Commonwealth of

Australia.

PIMC [Primary Industries Ministerial Council].

2004. Record and Resolutions: Seventh Meeting,Melbourne, 3 December 2004. Canberra: Com-

monwealth of Australia.

PM&C [Department of the Prime Minister and

Cabinet]. 2005. Commonwealth-State Minis-terial Councils: A Compendium. Canberra.

URL: <http://www.coag.gov.au/compendium/

compendium.pdf>.

Rose, R. 1991. ‘What is Lesson-Drawing?’ Journalof Public Policy 11(1): 3–30.

Rose, R. 1993. Lesson-drawing in Public Policy:A Guide to Learning across Time and Space.

Chatham, New Jersey: Chatham House Publish-

ers.

Saunders, C. 1991. ‘Constitutional and Legal As-

pects.’ In Intergovernmental Relations and Pub-lic Policy, eds B. Galligan, O. Hughes and C.

Walsh. North Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 39–

56.

Sharman, C. 1991. ‘Executive Federalism.’ In Inter-governmental Relations and Public Policy, eds B.

Galligan, O. Hughes and C. Walsh. North Sydney:

Allen & Unwin, 23–38.

Wiltshire, K. W., ed. 1977. Administrative Feder-alism: Selected Documents in Australian Inter-governmental Relations. St Lucia: University of

Queensland Press.


Improving Policy Effectiveness: Land Use Planning in a Devolved Polity

Documents

Transcript of Improving Policy Effectiveness: Land Use Planning in a Devolved Polity