No abstract

The 2013 election of Australia's conservative Abbott Coalition (Liberal and National parties) government saw the repeal of carbon pricing, (which had previously been implemented by the Labor government in 2012), assume the first order of business. This Focus article reviews expert and political commentary and analysis of the repeal, and provides an overview of the Abbott government's dismantling and attempted dismantling of other climate initiatives. It reviews commentary and critiques of the government's substitute Direct Action (DA) policy and its capacity to reduce emissions. The views of the international community on the Abbott government's repositioning of Australia's climate policy are considered, as are the prospects of achieving effective emissions reduction policy under Abbott's successor, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. The paper notes the role of the Senate in both assisting and frustrating government reforms, as well as aspects of policy continuity that could see a form of carbon pricing revived in future. It explores the correlation between the political ascension of Tony Abbott and his rejection of carbon pricing, whether his substitute DA mechanism will effectively reduce emissions, and the adequacy of Australia's current global climate policy aspirations.

Policymakers across myriad jurisdictions are grappling with the challenge of complex policy problems. Multi‐faceted, complex, and seemingly intractable, ‘wicked’ problems have exhausted the repertoire of the standard policy approaches. In response, governments are increasingly looking for new options, and one approach that has gained significant scholarly interest, along with increasing attention from practitioners, is ‘place‐based’ solutions. This paper surveys conceptual aspects of this approach. It describes practices in comparable jurisdictions – the United Kingdom, the EU, and the United States. And it explores efforts over the past decade to ‘localise’ Indigenous services. It sketches the governance challenge in migrating from top‐down or principal‐agent arrangements towards place‐based practice. The paper concludes that many of the building blocks for this shift already exist but that these need to be re‐oriented around ‘learning’. Funding and other administrative protocols may also ultimately need to be redefined.

While Australia has signed both the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, it has failed to ratify the latter. It is nevertheless committed to meeting its +8% Kyoto target for greenhouse gas emissions, and argues that it is on track to doing so. This paper examines Australia's non-ratification politics and greenhouse policy efforts in an attempt to explain its contrary position of resisting Kyoto, yet embracing and pursuing its emission reduction targets. Australia's behavior as a carbon-intensive nation is highly significant in the global context, and this paper focuses on the domestic factors of interests, ideas and institutions, while also considering international factors in trying to explain Australia's non-ratification of Kyoto and climate change policy development. It finds that while ideas and institutions have been modifying influences in the domestic context, political and economic interests have dominated Australia's greenhouse policy. (c) 2007 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

This article provides an overview of the politics of climate policy with a focus on carbon pricing politics under recent Australian Labor governments. It reviews and explains the impact of politics upon climate policy and draws attention to the influence of the fossil fuel lobby. It reviews historical context, including early, failed attempts to set and pursue emissions reduction; the domestic and international recalcitrance of neoliberal leaders; and the recent shift to embrace carbon pricing. It considers the impact of politics upon climate policy outcomes, piecing together political and policy efforts to price carbon, and drawing attention to the agenda setting of the Australian States and Territories, and of Kevin Rudd both as Labor opposition leader and as Prime Minister. It argues that the capacity of industry to thwart effective carbon pricing was only checked by institutional influences once Labor assumed minority government in 2010. In these circumstances, Labor relied upon the Australian Greens, not only to support in part its government in office, but also to pass legislation in the Senate where the Greens hold the balance of power. Under these circumstances, carbon pricing could be negotiated and agreed upon by a Multi-Party Committee on Climate Change (MPCCC) comprising the government and its parliamentary supporters, including independents and the Greens. Whilst political and economic interests have largely shaped Australia's climate change agendas, it is concluded that policy shifts are nevertheless possible where there is a propitious combination of political, normative, and institutional influences.