Premium
RESPONSES TO GROWTH IN THE SUN‐BELT STATE: PLANNING AND COORDINATING POLICY INITIATIVES IN QUEENSLAND
Author(s) -
Caulfield Janice
Publication year - 1993
Publication title -
australian journal of public administration
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.524
H-Index - 41
eISSN - 1467-8500
pISSN - 0313-6647
DOI - 10.1111/j.1467-8500.1993.tb00298.x
Subject(s) - jurisdiction , government (linguistics) , negotiation , local government , population , regional planning , land use planning , public administration , comprehensive planning , business , urban planning , autonomy , central government , economic growth , land use , economics , environmental planning , political science , sociology , geography , law , engineering , philosophy , linguistics , civil engineering , demography
Queensland's population growth phenomenon has demanded responses from the state government for greater intervention in planning land use and resources utilisation. Planning, especially regional planning, represents an area of traditional policy neglect in Queensland, explained in part by the division of powers such that local authorities, rather than the state, have the major responsibility for land‐use development and physical services. Local government jurisdiction in planning poses a challenge for the state government in how best to strategically manage regional growth, while at the same time respecting local authority autonomy in planning decision‐making. Over the last three years, the Goss government has undertaken both administrative reforms and a comprehensive and innovative planning exercise to shape urban development in south‐east Queensland, the area of greatest population density and growth. In particular, it has adopted a model of corporate government as a framework for the planning process. The corporate model promotes a “whole of government” approach to strategic planning, emphasising efficient and effective outcomes for clients. The model's client orientation has elevated and formalised the role of community input in decision‐making, and provided a process for negotiation between the players in planning policy development. In an intergovernmental environment, consultation with local authorities is important but the managerialist aspects of corporate government are likely to encourage central control of the planning policy agenda. Both are necessary for improved urban outcomes, yet it remains to be seen how these potentially conflicting processes can be reconciled in practice.