No abstract

An overview is presented of recent work on the environmental changes impacting on Australia and the policy responses of the State and Commonwealth governments, especially over the last ten years. This period has seen a remarkably stable phase of conservative government administration in Canberra and consistent resistance to a strong environmental policy agenda, both domestically and internationally. Attention is focused particularly on rural and regional Australia, rather than on urban areas. The paper discusses the role of environmental issues in recent elections and also details the results of relevant opinion polls charting changes in environmental attitudes. The problems posed by the federal system of administration are outlined as are recent analyses and counter‐analyses of the state of the Australian environment. A more fundamental problem with liberal democracy and environmental values is also addressed.

The privileged position occupied by think tanks in public debate is reflected in their access to mainstream media and their political commentary frequently accepted as independent expert opinion. However, behind the carefully constructed and closely guarded fac¸ade of intellectual autonomy is a network of interests drawn together in a campaign to reshape political values. By tracing the intellectual antecedents and the historical origins of think tanks and their role in fostering neoliberalism, we assess the emerging neoconservatism and the implications for public debate.

The concept of regulation has become critical to recent debates about the nature of restructuring in geographical and economic contexts. This paper is an exploration of the theoretical implications of viewing regulation as social practice as opposed to economic imperative. Emphasis is placed on French regulation theory and those attempting to reconstruct an understanding of regulation from within a hermeneutic—interpretive framework. By definition, these two approaches represent contrasting points of view. However, the author warns against setting the context of regulation within such oppositional parameters. The commentary is not about providing a definitive approach to regulation, but, rather, is an exploration of the methodological and epistemological issues arising from the divergent approaches to regulation that have emerged in the literature. The author draws heavily on the debate between interpretivists and legal positivists and argues that this domain provides a new and exciting avenue for research on the nature of regulation in the spatial sciences.

No abstract