Intergovernmental(processes(and(collaboration(

Given! the! distribution! and! overlap! in! the! roles! and! responsibilities! of! the! three! levels! of! government! for! urban! policy! and! development! (amongst! many! other! areas),! several! mechanisms!have!been!developed!to!enhance!coordination.!

The! Council! of! Australian! Governments! (COAG)! was! formed! in! 1992! to! facilitate! intergovernmental!cooperation,!policy!development!and!reform!in!Australia!(Gurran,!2011).!The! COAG!committee!includes!the!Prime!Minister,!Premiers,!Chief!Ministers!and!the!President!of!the! Australian!Local!Government!Association.!COAG!introduced!the!Capital!City!Strategic!Planning! Systems! Reform! in! 2009! to! achieve! the! objective! of! ensuring! ‘Australian! cities! are! globally! competitive,!productive,!sustainable,!liveable!and!socially!inclusive!and!are!well!placed!to!meet! future! challenges! and! growth.’! (COAG! Reform! Council,! 2009).! ! It! set! criteria! for! capital! city! planning,!upon!which!federal!infrastructure!funding!was!contingent.!These!criteria!include:!! L Integrated!land!use,!transport,!economic!and!infrastructure!development!planning;! L LongLterm,!and!nearLterm!land!use!planning;!

L Plans! should! address! climate! change,! population! growth! and! change,! productivity! global! competitiveness,! social! inclusion,! housing! affordability,! and! matters! of! national! environmental!significance;!and!

L Plans! should! include! provisions! for! nationally! significant! infrastructure,! such! as! transportation! corridors,! major! communication! and! utilities,! and! reservation! of! land! for! future!expansion!(COAG!Reform!Council,!2009).!

A! review! of! the! reform! efforts! in! 2011! highlighted! that! while! governments! had! shown! strong! commitment! to! improving! their! capital! city! strategic! planning! systems,! none! were! wholly! consistent!with!the!criteria.!The!review!also!noted!that!the!criteria!alone!were!not!sufficient!to! deliver! on! the! reform’s! objective,! and! recommended! governments! focus! their! efforts! on! improved! integration! within! governments! and! between! governments! (COAG! Reform! Council,! 2011).!

The! Intergovernmental# Agreement# on# Federal# Financial# Relations! (IGA)! establishes! the! framework!for!financial!transfers!from!the!Federal!Government,!which!controls!all!major!direct! and! indirect! taxes,! to! the! state! and! territory! governments! for! them! to! execute! their! responsibilities.! This! includes! for! urban! planning! and! infrastructure! development.! These! transfers!occur!in!several!forms,!including!as!untied!general!revenue!grants,!which!are!general! distributions! based! on! horizontal! fiscal! equalization! principles! (e.g.! Goods! and! Services! Tax);!

National!Specific!Purpose!Payments,!which!are!distributions!tied!to!key!service!delivery!sectors! (e.g.! health,! education);! and! National! Partnerships! (NPs),! which! are! tied! grants! for! specific! initiatives! (e.g.! MurrayLDarling! Basin! NP)! (Council! of! Australian! Governments,! 2008).! The! IGA! was! agreed! to! by! Australian! governments! through! the! Council! of! Australian! Governments! (COAG)! in! 2008,! and! aims! to! reduce! Commonwealth! prescriptions! on! service! delivery! and! provide! clearer! accountability! (Council! of! Australian! Governments,! 2008).! However,! a! review! noted!late!in!2013!that!there!had!been!insufficient!establishment!of!processes,!responsibilities! and! accountabilities! to! successfully! implement! the! reforms! agreed! to! in! the! IGA.! The! review! highlighted! that! the! Federal! Government! still! maintained! significant! control! over! inputs,! outputs,! timeframes! and! monitoring,! which! does! not! align! with! the! IGA’s! key! principle! of! outcomes!focused!reform!(COAG!Reform!Council,!2013).! Other!intergovernmental!committees,!national!ministerial!councils!or!other!structures!that!are! relevant!to!environmental!or!urban!planning!in!Australia!include!(Updated!from!Gurran,!2011):!! - The!National!Environment!Protection!Council!(NEPC);! - The!Development!Assessment!Forum!(DAF);! - The!Australian!Building!Codes!Board!(ABCB);! - Standing!Council!on!Energy!and!Resources!(SCER);! - Standing!Council!on!Federal!Financial!Relations!(SCFFR);! - Standing!Council!on!Transport!and!Infrastructure!(SCOTI);!and! - Built!Environment!Industry!Innovation!Council!(BEIIC).! 2.2.5 Key(nonLgovernment(stakeholder(roles(( NonLgovernment!stakeholders!play!an!important!role!in!urban!development,!alongside!the!three! levels!of!government.!The!following!paragraphs!highlight!the!role!of!community!representation! and!private!sector!influences.!!

NonLgovernment! influences! on! urban! development! are! evident! in! community! engagement! in! public!policy,!which!is!called!for!at!all!levels!of!government!in!Australia.!These!commitments!are! manifested!in!reality!to!varying!degrees.!A!reviews!of!public!policy!literature!find!that!in!general! local! and! state! governments! have! had! greater! success! in! engaging! citizens! in! both! the! development! and! implementation! of! policy,! and! in! service! delivery! than! the! Commonwealth! Government,! but! the! extent! to! which! genuine! engagement! occurs! depends! heavily! on! circumstances!(Holmes,!2011).!To!the!degree!that!this!does!occur,!citizens!therefore!play!a!role! in!directing!urban!planning!policy!and!development.!

The!influence!of!private!interests!on!urban!development!have!grown!substantially!in!Australia! due!to!competition!between!cities!for!investment!capital!and!the!rise!of!the!neoliberal!agenda.! Keynesian!principles!dominated!postLwar!planning!and!urban!development!in!Australia!(Tonts! &! HaslamLMcKenzie,! 2005)! in! reaction! to! the! social! and! environmental! catastrophes! that! resulted! from! unconstrained! urban! development! during! the! Industrial! Revolution,! along! with! the! economic! upheaval! from! the! Great! Depression! and! world! wars! (Gleeson! &! Low,! 2000a).! Town! planning,! which! had! begun! in! the! 1920s,! was! strengthened! from! 1944! with! a! focus! on! zoning! as! the! primary! mechanism! for! directing! urban! development! (Gleeson! &! Low,! 2000b).! With!pressure!from!citizens,!developers!and!the!planning!profession,!this!evolved!into!a!more! comprehensive!planning!process!that!was!goal!directed!and!future!orientated!(Gleeson!&!Low,! 2000b).!!

From!the!late!1970s,!a!neoliberal!agenda!began!to!emerge!on!the!Australian!political!landscape,! mirroring! a! similar! shift! in! many! Western! nations! at! that! time.! The! neoliberal! agenda! is! suggested! to! have! risen! to! such! prominence! as! a! result! of! several! conditions,! including! firstly! that! modernisation! and! urbanisation! have! created! a! need! for! significant! investment! in! cities.! Secondly,!capital!has!become!highly!mobile!as!part!of!the!globalisation!process,!and!cities!now! compete! for! this! capital! to! fund! infrastructure,! commercial! buildings,! factories! and! renewed! housing! stock! (Sager,! 2011).! Williams! and! Maginn! (2012)! suggest! the! reliance! of! state! governments! on! the! private! sector! to! stimulate! economic! growth! and! employment! through! investment! and! development! has! caused! them! to! become! “entrepreneurial! states”,! acting! as! a! corporation! with! the! primary! purpose! of! attracting! business! to! the! state.! A! broad! consensus! between! political! parties! also! supported! the! embedding! of! neoliberal! values! of! trade! liberalisation,!public!fiscal!conservatism!and!deregulation!within!the!Australian!political!system.! From!a!planning!perspective,!parties!eschewed!the!regulatory!approach!and!use!of!spatial!plans,! in! favour! of! an! output! based! approach! with! performance! indicators! (Gleeson! &! Low,! 2000a;! Tonts!&!HaslamLMcKenzie,!2005)!that!were!often!vaguely!expressed!(Buxton!&!Tieman,!2005).! Planning! was! seen! as! a! distortion! of! market! mechanisms,! which! threatened! the! efficient! allocation! of! resources! and! the! motivations! of! private! entities! to! invest! in! urban! development! (Sager,!2011).!!

Such!neoliberal!influences!on!the!planning!systems!in!Australia!have!had!implications!for!how! cities! are! being! developed,! and! in! particular! for! the! inclusion! of! social! and! environmental! concerns! in! planning! and! development.! Competition! between! cities! and! states! for! investment! capital! has! resulted! in! state! governments! further! deregulating! the! planning! system,! removing! prescriptive! requirements,! privatising! services! and! infrastructure,! outsourcing! aspects! of! the! planning!and!seeking!to!minimise!development!application!‘red!tape’.!!The!influence!of!private!

sector! interests! on! urban! development! is! significantly! increased! in! the! absence! of! clear! and! strong!planning!policy!(Gleeson!&!Low,!2000b;!Tonts!&!HaslamLMcKenzie,!2005).!_!

There! is! significant! concern! expressed! within! the! literature! that! neoliberalism! is! eroding! the! ability!of!planners!–!and!society!as!a!whole!through!elected!officials!and!planning!professionals!–! to!direct!urban!development!in!a!way!that!recognises!a!range!social!and!environmental!values! that! are! otherwise! generally! market! externalities! (Gleeson! &! Low,! 2000a).! The! outsourcing! of! planning! and! development! approval! to! private! consultancies! may! create! situations! where! the! public! interest! is! deprioritised! against! that! of! property! developers! (Steele,! 2009).! RiskLaverse! developers!have!historically!had!a!tendency!to!avoid!innovation!and!develop!properties!similar! to! those! already! in! existence! to! be! certain! of! their! market.! This! is! argued! to! have! typically! resulted! in! more! lowLdensity,! sprawling! development! that! is! poorly! connected! to! public! transport,!and!which!has!exacerbated!socioLeconomic!spatial!profiles!(Buxton!&!Tieman,!2005).! The! demise! of! social! and! environmental! considerations! in! urban! development! has! been! observed!by!many!others,!and!is!linked!to!the!rise!of!neoliberal!influences!on!Australian!politics! generally,! and! planning! more! specifically! (Gleeson! &! Low,! 2000a,! 2000b;! Tonts! &! HaslamL McKenzie,!2005).!_!

2.2.6 Summary(

Australian! cities! have! developed! rapidly! during! the! postLwar! years.! The! low! cost! of! fuel! and! availability! of! land! have! resulted! in! sprawling! and! automobileLdependent! cities,! however! recognition! of! the! negative! impacts! of! urban! sprawl! coupled! with! population! growth! and! urbanisation!trends!are!such!that!these!patterns!of!development!are!unlikely!to!continue!in!the! future.! Substantial! urban! infill! is! already! occurring! in! Australia’s! major! cities,! and! is! likely! to! continue,!to!accommodate!larger!urban!populations!and!their!demand!for!access!to!employment! and!services.!The!governance!of!urban!development!involves!all!three!levels!of!government!in! Australia! in! what! have! become! increasingly! fragmented! and! overlapping! roles! and! responsibilities.!In!addition,!private!interests!have!a!growing!influence!on!urban!development,! due!to!the!dominance!of!the!neoliberal!agenda!in!Australia!and!a!reliance!on!private!investment! to! fund! and! develop! urban! infrastructure.! Within! this! context,! the! management! of! urban! development!in!Australia!is!found!to!be!complex,!with!multiple!stakeholders!that!have!at!times! divergent!interests,!and!with!an!embedded!legacy!of!urban!form!and!function.!!