Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHollander, Robynen_US
dc.contributor.editorPolitical Studies Dept, University of Otagoen_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-03T11:25:59Z
dc.date.available2017-05-03T11:25:59Z
dc.date.issued2005en_US
dc.identifier.refurihttp://www.otago.ac.nz/politicalstudies/conferences/apsa05/papAP21%20Hollander.pdfen_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/2802
dc.description.abstractIn recent times, the commonwealth has shown a keen interest in moving into areas of state responsibility. Most recent proposals involve either a direct assumption of state powers as is the case in industrial relations, or direct negotiations with the agencies or community organisations as in the case of university reform or funding for environmental projects. However, in the less partisan climate of the mid 1990s, the commonwealth was content to exercise more indirect levers, working through the states to reshape policy outcomes, while leaving formal responsibilities intact. This indirect approach, most evident in National Competition Policy, shielded the commonwealth from the messy political consequences of pursuing unpopular policy agendas, leaving the states to carry the bulk of the political opprobrium. Throughout much of the late 1980s and early 1990s, commonwealth-state relations around forest management were politically charged. The Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) process was a mechanism which reduced the political heat on the commonwealth whilst still allowing it to retain a degree of influence in state government resource management. This paper examines the RFA process from a federalist perspective. It asks has the RFA process allowed the commonwealth to remove itself from a difficult political situation , or instead has it provided the commonwealth with a sophisticated tool which allows it considerable influence with only minimal exposure to political flak? In the case of NCP, three factors were important in establishing the commonwealth's power - a national policy framework, a negotiated agreement and the strategic use of financial and other power resources. The paper finds that these elements are present to a lesser or greater extent in the RFAs suggesting that the commonwealth retains an important backseat role in forest issues.en_US
dc.description.peerreviewedYesen_US
dc.description.publicationstatusYesen_US
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherAustralasian Political Studies Associationen_US
dc.publisher.placePublished Onlineen_US
dc.publisher.urihttp://www.auspsa.org.au/en_US
dc.relation.ispartofstudentpublicationNen_US
dc.relation.ispartofconferencenameAustralasian Political Studies Association Conference 2005en_US
dc.relation.ispartofconferencetitleAustralasian Political Studies Association Conference 2005en_US
dc.relation.ispartofdatefrom2005-09-28en_US
dc.relation.ispartofdateto2005-09-30en_US
dc.relation.ispartoflocationOtaga University, Dunedin, New Zealanden_US
dc.rights.retentionYen_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode360201en_US
dc.titleBackseat driver? the Commonwealth, Regional Forest Agreements and Australian Federalismen_US
dc.typeConference outputen_US
dc.type.descriptionE1 - Conference Publications (HERDC)en_US
dc.type.codeE - Conference Publicationsen_US
gro.facultyGriffith Business School, School of Government and International Relationsen_US
gro.date.issued2015-06-04T03:45:05Z
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Conference outputs
    Contains papers delivered by Griffith authors at national and international conferences.

Show simple item record