AND THE
SALIENT GUIDE
Life in a modern democratic society creates a vast range of issues which demand the attention of an incumbent government. It is the aim of a democratic government to accept the demands of the issues in order that, as leadership, they involve themselves in efforts to act in a manner that is helpful for the nation and its states. One way to do this (and there are many) is through ‘Policy’. In Australia, the ideal form of policy is either written under the constitution, or ideological and spoken (convention). To a lesser extent, convention may be policy.
Issues that influence policy
and policy-making are broad and many, however there are those that are salient
and often on the political agenda. These -the salient ones- are the focus of
this essay; to discuss some of them and place them in a manner that shows their
importance and the reason that they become prominent and in need of political
attention. Because issues affect policy at various times and ways (if not
always), the aim is not to give a full breakdown of policy influencers, but
rather, to give a general and initial overview of the make-up of some salient policy
affecters. In concluding the discussion it will be possible to see that both
State and Federal parliaments influence policy in tandem with community needs.
It is important to realise
that the State or Federal parliament is the first and primary influence on
policy. This is in the case of existing policy and new policy being
constructed, and thereafter in the coordination phase. Hague and others give
five stages of construction that policy sees as it passes through State or
Federal parliament and is signed into law.
They highlight: Initiation, Formulation, Implementation,
Evaluation, and Decision as the five stages of construction. The states have policy
formulation powers provided by chapter five of the constitution, particularly
section 107 and 108; these and others are known as residual powers. The
Commonwealth Government tends to have more influence on salient policy if the
issues are large, national or complex; whereas the states get involved (through
residual powers) with policy that is more appropriate for local and regional
government. However, in the case of existing policy, there are other powers
that may be a first affecting player; these may be interest groups, issues
affecting policy, or external forces such as stock markets.
Once legislation is passed
and it becomes policy, the last task for state governments is coordination of
the effects of a policy. For as each new or altered policy begins a role; there
will be problems like resistance to it, the possibility of misinterpretation,
and the need to take care of the financial aspects of it. Any of these could
have a negative influence on a policy. Hede & Presser say that: ‘This is a
special problem in a federation: in Australia the Commonwealth may have specific objectives, but the states
may be the implementation agents’. And ‘the major policy players are the states
and local government’. They divulge that even though a federal government is a
major player in the making of policy: ‘the Commonwealth has little direct
constitutional role in cities’; Hede & Presser.
In particular, city policy
receives a great deal of attention by the state governments because that is
where a majority of the population is found. In 1986, eighty-five per-cent of
Australians lived in urbanised regions. This; says Hede & Presser, is where a majority of policy
focus lies. Subsequently, urban political, social and infrastructure needs are
a salient influence on policy. At state level, policy culture is held by
Considine, to be a key influence on policy. He cites studies of ‘social
capital’, and puts it in the same basket with policy culture saying that the
factors play a key role in influencing policy. The social capital is needed to
stimulate preferences and judgement so as to arrive at consensual meaning. He
believes that ‘engagement and solidarity’ is what counts rather than a promoted
homogeneity: Considine. Therefore, each conclusion of ‘social capital’ activity
is likely to be a salient policy alternator. Values, assumptions, categories
and language are the elements of political culture that is used by social
capital to instigate and establish a footing in the policy evaluation and
alteration process. ‘Culture then becomes a means to examine … what is valuable
to those engaged in policy making’. The social capital and political culture
stance combine to be an influence on the states policy’s; an influence that, if
measured, is likely to be quite salient.
Each state has a great number of issues that require a policy stance.
However, some may prove to be difficult for a state government to ratify or
finance; or the issue may be too large, thus requiring Commonwealth management.
Nonetheless, state issue representatives (wether they are interest groups, or
officials or policy professionals) can not do much about influencing policy
issues unless they have identified arguments about a policy that need
addressing. Smith believes that to achieve this, first a resistance against
lobby groups is required so as to ascertain whether an alteration of a policy
is truly necessary and not just a lot of distraction. Once the need has been
confirmed: ‘Policy-makers may whisk a problem on to the political agenda when
events produce an upsurge in popular concern’. The issues have now become
salient to the citizenry, as many of them are; however, some issues remain
dormant and unnoticed for awhile, awaiting their next time of popular concern
in the states.
In most states, the
following issues are likely to be -or become- salient to either the federal
government or state governments and the populace throughout a period of time.
Hede & Presser have categorised some conspicuous issues that regularly
affect their associated policies. Taxes are the most controversial and are
always concerning people, but with the implementation of the Goods and Services
Tax on January 2000, the issue of state revenue anxiety has been reduced.
However, there is still the question of how much, and from what location the
state governments are supposed to obtain tax to pay ever-increasing burdens. In
1993 Hede & Presser determined
that: ‘over the last five or six years has been a political consensus that many
of the economic difficulties…be lessened if many our markets worked better’.
They suggest that state infrastructure policies and policy-making could be
improved.
Infrastructure of the states
is a vast container of state policy; policy required for roads, electricity,
health, and domestic services. Services not only including police, fire and
ambulance; there is also shipping and communications. Hede & Presser believed that micro-economic
reform for infrastructure over the then next decade would be important. One
supra-salient issue for all state policy is that of water. The current concern
and importance of this issue is growing exponentially with the problem of environmental
degradation. A Canberra produced pamphlet about ‘water in a dry land’ (2000),
cites policy reform by the States and Territories that: ‘separate water rights
from property rights…trading…arrangements and environmental flows’. The reason
that this issue is so salient is because Australia uses extreme amounts of
surface and subterraneal waters, and relies little on household rainwater
storage. Each Australian is calculated to use three hundred and fifty litres of
water a day.
Considine has found that part
of the current problems with water have their basis in old policy: ‘policy
demands therefore tended to result in engineering solutions’. And: ‘a user-pays
philosophy took root’. ‘The regulatory agencies at state level were also
dominated by an engineering orientation’.
As is now becoming more apparent with the 2002/2003 eastern and southern state
droughts, the states need to learn more about conservation and allow the
environment to educate and influence policy-makers. Particularly in the
tri-state Murray-Darling river region.
Along with the privatisation of water supplies,
there must be an education program that addresses both local water
infrastructure processes of the future and the policy that drives it. The state
system must be aimed at ecological recovery not just sustainability, as we may
be past the point of sustainability already. Hede & Presser say that along with privatisation;
decentralisation of policy making may be beneficial and more efficient. They
say: ‘This will be a major area of policy debate with farmers on one side and
environmental and microeconomic reformers on the other’. Privatised policy
evolution could be workable with the right reformers.
Policy development and evolution is intrinsic in a federal democratic
system and the Australian constitution allows states to make decisions that
affect local policy as well as Commonwealth and international political
agendas. Examples of this are trade tariffs and maritime borders, fishing zones
and flight space. Immigration policy has recently become salient with some
state government and communities; particularly after the 2001 ‘Tampa Crisis’ in
which a boatload of stranded refugees had to be rescued of the high sees by
merchant shipping. ‘Boat people’ (the term for marine bound refugees) had,
until that time, been quietly affecting Australian north and west state policy
for many years. This was due to the accommodation requirements that were
demanded for their containment. They affected both infrastructure policy and
state and national security policy and on many occasions they were prominent.
Woodward and others say of the now salient immigration policy: ‘This is a
policy area…normally removed…characterised by a lively politics of public
debate and interest mobilisation’. The political economy for immigration came
out of isolation during the crisis creating much public interest.
Due to Australia’s
geographical isolation, economic policy has been tied to public interest in
many ways and affected by global economic forces. The import and export trade
of essential goods through the markets is the main point of international
policy and economic contact. Any fluctuation in large overseas markets can
filter down to the Commonwealth and on into the states. Different commodities
affect other states in various ways. However, some have their salient points;
for example Western Australia has mineral exports to account for, Queensland
has a sugar industry to legislate for and New South Wales has the trading of
black coal as an international concern. These and many other Australian export
commodities experience effects from global markets and thus their respective
state policy’s are tuned to accommodate (as best they can) the fluctuations.
Woodward and others confirm: ‘This reliance on commodity exports had always
meant that the Australian economy was vulnerable to fluctuations…so that world
recessions had a pronounced adverse effect’. In the current climate of drought,
it is possible that some eastern states are experiencing some pressure on
salient policy. Pressure such as ways of drought proofing regions, or to do
more about international trade tariffs. Interest groups would be currently
quite active in these two fields of the legislation process.
Whilst many of these issues
and their legislation’s may be seen to be only of interest to the Federal
Government, the concluding issues are nonetheless salient and are the subject
of state policy and politics. As with federal political issues, state based
interest groups are players making policy and policy-making very often salient.
Once the implementation and evaluation of a policy is done, the next part is
the coordination of a policy. Hague
and others summarising their plan of
policy construction, suggest: ‘adapting it to local conditions’. Time and resources are needed, there
should be little obstruction and there needs to be bureaucratic compliance to
ensure stability of it.
The ratification of legislation does not
conclude the dealings with it nor indeed silence it. Conspicuous issues
predominate the political arena, especially in the field of policy-making and
policy culture. There are many problems that are encountered in the policy
arena such as water and the economy, and states play their part in both
administering and implementing the associated policy. The issues and problems
for state policy administration are many; some small and localised, while
others are salient and regional and perhaps shared nationally. States play a
greater role in the policy area than what the federal government generally
does. It is the constitution that allows states to create their own legislation
and administer it. Influence on salient state policy will be a continuous
scenario because of the contentious detail of policy; and thus any influence
may never conclude.
CONSIDINE, Mark.1994. PUBLIC POLICY A CRITICAL APPROACH.
South Melbourne: MACMILLAN
EDUCATION AUSTRALIA PTY LTD.
HAGUE, Rod., Martin Harrop
& Shaun Breslin.1998. Comparative Government
and
Politics. An Introduction. 4th edition. London: MACMILLAN PRESS
LTD.
HEDE, Andrew., and Scott
Prasser. Eds.1993. POLICY MAKING IN VOLATILE
TIMES.
New South Wales: Southwood Press Pty Limited.
SMITH, Rodney. Ed.1994. POLITICS IN AUSTRALIA. Second Edition.
New South Wales: Allen &
Unwin Pty Ltd.
WOODWARD,
Dennis., Andrew Parkin, John Summers.1997.
GOVERNMENT POLITICS POWER & POLICY. Sixth edition.
South
Melbourne: Addison Wesley Longman
Australia Pty Limited.
WATER IN A DRY LAND issues and challenges for
Australia’s key resource.
March 2000. Canberra: National Capital Printing.