Community consultation in public policy: The case of the Murray-Darling Basin of Australia

Crase, Lin; Dollery, Brian; Wallis, Joe

doi:10.1080/10361140500129990

Cited by 38 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Australian Government's decision to provide opportunities for stakeholder feedback at multiple steps in the development of legislation is evidence of its preference for consultative policy-development processes, a system which is increasingly being questioned. Crase et al [25] found that such community consultation processes may be inefficient as successive consultation processes may contain unique questions and responses to the extent that each consultation process must be started anew, without an opportunity for policy-makers to learn from the outcomes of previous consultation processes. Contrary to this, the RET Issues Paper responses indicate that the opposite is true e stakeholders are growing increasingly frustrated with covering similar material, with the same outcomes, in on-going review processes.…”

Section: To Review or Not To Review? E Frequency Of Review Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Picking winners and policy uncertainty: Stakeholder perceptions of Australia's Renewable Energy Target

Simpson¹,

Clifton²

2014

Renewable Energy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tAustralia's Renewable Energy Target (RET) mandates investment in renewable electricity generation through a renewable energy certificate market. A legislated national consultative review of the RET was carried out in 2012, resulting in 8660 submissions. Respondents were invited to comment on the value of the legislated target, including whether the legislated target should be a fixed GWh target or a fixed policy-based percentage-of-demand target, and the impact of review processes on the renewable energy industry. This paper presents the first analysis of submissions and evaluates their implications for the future of this policy. There was a consistent alignment of opinion amongst respondents, with industry and fossil-fuel generation/retailer groups opposing the RET objectives, whilst these were supported by NGOs and the renewable sector. However, most respondents favoured maintaining the overall goal of providing 20% renewable electricity generation by 2020. Concerns were raised by most groups of respondents regarding policy continuity and excessive reviewing procedures. In its response to the review, the Climate Change Authority made a total of 34 recommendations, 18 maintaining the status quo. Only six recommendations were endorsed by the Australian Government that would result in changes to the scheme. It is concluded that such review processes can be significantly harmful to maintaining stability and certainty in an industry requiring long-term commitment for investments, and that the Australian Government continues to favour the status quo in responding to consultative review processes relating to renewable energy policies.

show abstract

Section: To Review or Not To Review? E Frequency Of Review Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Picking winners and policy uncertainty: Stakeholder perceptions of Australia's Renewable Energy Target

Simpson¹,

Clifton²

2014

Renewable Energy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some policymakers may find the idea of engaging the public a costly and pointless exercise, which is fraught with political risks. 11 In response to the claim that people will not participate because of insufficient free time, it is not expected that all members of the community will be interested in all issues or can make themselves available on a regular basis. Instead, it is assumed that some people will have an occasional, but strong, interest in particular issues and, given an opportunity and encouragement, will participate in a public forum.…”

Section: The Case For Community Participationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Community Participation in Australian Science and Technology Policy: The Case of Nanotechnology

Harwood¹,

Schibeci²

2008

Prometheus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nanotechnology is widely considered to offer enormous competitive advantages to those countries that possess the knowledge and capacity to harness its potential. As in many other countries, Australia's nanotechnology policy is in its infancy and lags international research in the field. We examine the role of community engagement in the development of nanotechnology in Australia, and argue that if Australia is to establish a sustainable nanotechnology policy, then it must broaden its perspective and more carefully consider the social, ethical and environmental aspects of nanotechnology. We support the goal of shared economic growth through technological advancement; however, this seems unlikely as long as the Australian government persists with what is essentially a technical and socially exclusive approach to stimulating innovation in nanotechnology. While opposition to nanotechnology is still 'thin on the ground', it is starting to emerge and the Commonwealth and State governments would do well to treat it with respect.community engagement, nanotechnology, science policy,

show abstract

“…Participatory methods in this sense could be used as a means of capturing information about social-environmental systems (Stringer et al , 2006). However, avenues for participation in the Murray appear to draw primarily on theories of deliberative democracy, or attempt to garner ownership of decisions already made (for example, Crase et al , 2005;MBDC, 2005). The case studies in this paper show these approaches are problematic because tensions potentially exist between broader and local community values.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Future of the Murray River: Amenity Re‐Considered?

Howard

2008

Geographical Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most efforts to restore environmental flows to the Murray River assume that it means resolving a dilemma between two competing needs: those of the environment and those of agriculturalists. This paper provides evidence to show amenity is also important, it is not being adequately considered, and that this, in turn, is impeding efforts to restore environmental flows.The paper contains a literature review of a number of studies which, when combined, show that the importance of amenity (tourism, recreation and lifestyle) is of similar scale (has significant economic value and community support) to productive values. Three case studies show that community concerns about loss of amenity values have impeded restoration programs despite evidence that existing practices are causing environmental damage. The debate about water use in the Murray is clearly not simply one between environment and production but also one involving lifestyles. The challenge is to better understand the nature and scale of amenity and its relationship to other natural resource management issues.

show abstract

Community consultation in public policy: The case of the Murray-Darling Basin of Australia

Cited by 38 publications

References 11 publications

Picking winners and policy uncertainty: Stakeholder perceptions of Australia's Renewable Energy Target

Picking winners and policy uncertainty: Stakeholder perceptions of Australia's Renewable Energy Target

Community Participation in Australian Science and Technology Policy: The Case of Nanotechnology

The Future of the Murray River: Amenity Re‐Considered?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About