Policy-making in a ‘Cold Climate’ of Ruling Party Benefit

Party Government and the Regulation of Government Advertising in Australia

Bibliographic Data

ID6234895
AuthorsSally Young (0000-0002-4030-4012, The University of Melbourne, corresponding author)
Year2007
Volume42
Issue3
Pages489-502
Publication date2007-09-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueAustralian Journal of Political Science (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1036-1146 • E-ISSN: 1363-030X
PublisherInforma UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/10361140701513612
OpenAlexW2152252994
LanguageEN
Citations received2
References cited21

When analysing party government behaviour, attempts to detect opportunistic policy making (designed to benefit the incumbent) usually focus on electoral law and changes designed to advantage the ruling party in terms of potential votes. However, as Stein Rokkan (Citation1966, 105) noted: ‘Votes count, but resources decide’. A laissez faire approach to regulating government advertising has allowed the federal government to spend over A$1 billion on advertising over 10 years despite ongoing accusations of misuse for partisan benefit and attempts by multiple actors to tighten the rules. This article, therefore, uses government advertising regulation as a case study of policy making ‘in a cold climate’ where, instead of seeking change, the ruling party benefits from existing rules and is extremely reluctant to change them. Using a hypothesis proposed by Richard S. Katz Citation(2005), it considers what (if anything) might propel policy reform in such a situation. Notes 1Workplace Relations Amendment (Better Bargaining Bill) 2005; Australian Workplace Safety Standards Bill; Building and Construction Industry Improvement Bill 2005; Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005; Asbestos-Related Claims (Management of Commonwealth Liabilities) Bill 2005; Appropriations Bill (No.1) 2006–07; Appropriations Bill (No.2) 2006–07. 2 New South Wales v Commonwealth of Australia; Western Australia v Commonwealth of Australia [2006] HCA 52; McKinnon v Secretary, Department of Treasury [2006] HCA 45. Additional informationNotes on contributorsSally Young Sally Young is a Senior Lecturer in Media and Communications at The University of Melbourne. She thanks Andrew Murray, Graeme Orr and Alex Reilly for their very helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper, and Harry Evans for providing a copy of his speech and permission to quote from it

Commonwealth · Government (linguistics · Political science · Treasury · Law · Policy Transfer and Learning · Political Influence and Corporate Strategies · Public Administration · Public Policy and Administration Research

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub