The details of this question are as follows:
what are the key technical and practical issues involved in creating a single national planning system for Australia and discuss the relative merits and demerits of pursuing such a goal in the current constitutional and political environment.
Dear Salman
Here are some issues to consider:
1. You must first define "planning". In Australian English, it is an ambiguous word. Listed from broadest to narrowest uses, it can refer to strategic policy-making; or more narrowly confined to spatial land use planning (also called urban and regional planning) or even more narrowly, just statutory development control (zoning + development assessment).
2. You must take into account the division of powers between levels of government under Australia's constitution. When the former British colonies federated (1901), The Commonwealth was assigned only those powers that the States were prepared to relinquish – the States came first. The States retained all powers over land, natural resources and development. Since then, the Commonwealth has assumed responsibility for implementing external treaties within Australia's boundaries, including some such as biodiversity which impinge upon state rights. Local government is a creature of the States, so like the Commonwealth, its existence does not reduce the States' responsibility for land use planning. Statutory development control is delegated to local government in all States, with the State governments retaining various reserve powers.
3. You should consider the "vertical fiscal imbalance", meaning that the Commonwealth collects most of the taxes but the States are responsible for most of the services. This is one reason for a general trend in the past 30 years for functions to drift towards the Commonwealth. Example: the planning of major transport infrastructure.
4. You should also consider the neoliberal policy agenda introduced progressively since 1983, with its pressure for economic efficiency, greater central control and greater involvement of commercial firms. Example: once, the Commonwealth simply paid money to the States as a contribution to major national highways. Now it has established a new entity Infrastructure Australia with a commercial board sitting outside the public service and promoting major transport construction projects. A Research Report I wrote recently (see link) explains the damage this is doing to planning.
5. You need to consider the different attitudes towards planning by Coalition (conservative) and Labor (centre-left) governments. Labor governments tend to establish new planning and city renewal programs and conservative governments tend to abolish them. The Council of Australian Governments (COAG) is the main intra-jurisdictional forum for negotiating division of responsibilities between the States and the Commonwealth, and new programs.
6.You should consider the groundbreaking role played by the Whitlam governments (1972-1975) in land use planning such as its regional growth centres program and the Department of Urban and Regional Development.
7. You should give some thought to theoretical arguments for and against centralisation. On the one hand, there are economies of scale by centralising; on the other hand there are diseconomies of scale caused by separation of strategic planners from on-ground functionaries with in-depth knowledge of local problems. You should also consider the significance of coordination. Coordination is a central function of government and becomes more difficult as the geographic scope of the activity widens and as the number of other arms of government widen.
Hope these suggestions help.
http://apo.org.au/resource/transport-infrastructure-planning-has-lost-its-way
Thank you very much Dr. Edwards for a detailed enlightenment. Highly appreciated.
Perhaps you will find some technical guidance in Leif Johansen´s excellent contribution "Lectures on Macroeconomic Planning: General Aspects" from 1977. This work will give you a valuable theoretical fundament to examine and explain a range of planning aspects that I believe is still relevant today. One of the main reasons to consider Johansen is his (rather unusual) focus to provide planning schemes to enhance the understanding for the role of (macroeconomic-)planning and events that the planner can (through different intervention tools) and cannot control (e.g. oil prices, external demand). Naturally, you should bear in mind that this book was written during an era where there was a strong belief in planning and that market forces could (and should) be affected. Enjoy!
Lectures on macroeconomic planning. Part 1: General Aspects Hardcover.Publisher: North-Holland; 1st edition (1977). ISBN-10: 0720405653
https://www.amazon.com/Lectures-macroeconomic-planning-Part-General/dp/0720405653
Dear All, Thank you very much for taking out time to respond to my queries. Highly appreciated.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Filing