DOCSLIB.ORG

Urban Climate Governance and Co-Creation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Urban Climate Governance and Co-Creation NIBR REPORT 2020:8 NORWEGIAN INSTITUTE FOR URBAN AND REGIONAL RESEARCH NIBR Urban climate governance and co-creation In Cape Town, Copenhagen, Gothenburg and Oslo Edited by Hege Hofstad and Trond Vedeld Urban climate governance and co-creation – in Cape Town, Copenhagen, Gothenburg and Oslo Other publications from NIBR NIBR-rapport 2019:15 Folkehelse og sosial bærekraft - en sammenligning og diskusjon av begrepsinnhold, målsettinger og praktiske tilnærminger NIBR-rapport 2019:11 Viken og delregionene – samfunnsutvikling og bærekraft, utfordringer og muligheter NIBR-rapport 2019:10 Regional bolig-, areal- og transportplanlegging – status og utviklingsmuligheter NIBR-rapport 2019:6 Samskaping som samarbeids- og styringsform for kommunenes folkehelsearbeid: Hva vet vi? Hva er utfordrende? Og hvor går vi videre? NIBR-rapport 2015:26 Forskning for framtidens byer. Status og utfordringer i møte med en ny global agenda. NIBR-notat 2011:118 Grønn økonomi og Rio+20. ”Business-as-usual” eller nytt paradigme? Title: Urban climate governance and co-creation – in Cape Town, Copenhagen, Gothenburg and Oslo Authors: Hege Hofstad and Trond Vedeld (editors) NIBR Report: 2020:8 ISSN: 1502-9794 ISBN: 978-82-8309-309-4 Project name: Governing the Green Shift in Oslo, Gothenburg, Copenhagen and Cape Town through Leadership of Co-creation (GreenGov) (2017-2021) Financial supporter: Research Council of Norway (Grant 270668) Head of project: Hege Hofstad Abstract: The study provides an outline and comparative analysis of the evolution in climate policies and governance systems of four cities with ambitious climate goals and strategies; three Scandinavian cities, Copenhagen, Gothenburg and Oslo; and one South African city; Cape Town. In each city, we explore the evolution in climate goals, strategies, policy and institutional designs over two decades and how these materialize in distinct approaches to urban climate governance and co-creation. Our aim is to shed light on different – and similar - paths to urban climate governance among forerunning cities with bold climate goals i.e. in terms of embracing a coherent climate policy for mitigation, adaptation, climate equity and sustainable urban futures. The study adopts a polycentric governing perspective (multilevel and multi-actor). The empirical findings from the four city case studies are based on reviews of key climate change-relevant policy documents and websites (through 2019) and a set of key informant interviews. In each of the cities, we find that urban climate governance is manifest in a mix of traditional governance mechanisms, and new, more innovative co-creational instruments through hybrid forms of governance. The study brings up some distinctive and important differences in the urban climate policies and governing approaches between the three Scandinavian cities and Cape Town, but the study also reveals many similarities in approaches across all the four cities. All the cities engage in diverse networks and co-creational arenas for shared climate responses at different levels and scales. Drawing upon the comparative experiences of urban climate governance all these forerunning cities, ‘eight essentials for effective, sustainable and fair urban climate governance and leadership’ are suggested that might bring cities onto pathways towards climate transformation. Summary: English Date: June 2020 Pages: 111 Publisher: Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research OsloMet – Oslo Metropolitan University Postboks 4 St. Olavs plass 0130 OSLO Telephone: (+47) 67 23 50 00 E-mail: [email protected] http://www.oslomet.no/nibr © NIBR 2020 Preface This study provides an outline and comparative analysis of the evolution in climate goals, policies and governance systems of four cities with ambitious climate goals and strategies; three Scandinavian cities, Copenhagen, Gothenburg and Oslo; and one South African city; Cape Town. The study explores changes in urban climate responses over two decades and how these materialize in distinct approaches to urban climate governance and co-creation. The study reveals that the cities exhibit varying outcomes in terms of changes in climate goals, policies, organization, and interactional relationships related to national and transnational city networks and arenas. There are, however, both some common, distinct features of a ‘Scandinavian model’ of urban climate governance as well as several general features across all the four cities which provides specific lessons for urban climate governance. Drawing upon the observations from the four cities, the authors suggest ‘eight essentials for effective, sustainable and fair urban climate governance and leadership’ that can bring cities on to pathways towards climate transformation. The study is a product of the four years project: Governing the Green Shift in Oslo, Gothenburg, Copenhagen and Cape Town through Leadership of Co-creation (GreenGov) (2017-2021). The project is led by NIBR-OsloMet. The project is funded by the Research Council of Norway (Grant 270668).1 GreenGov is a partnership between NIBR-Oslo Metropolitan University, Roskilde School of Governance/Roskilde University, Mistra Urban Future/Chalmers University of Technology, and the University of Cape Town/Energy Research Centre/African Centre for Cities. The authors greatly acknowledge the contributions from the many key informants in each of the cities, and the financial support provided by the Research Council of Norway. The name and affiliation of the contributing authors are provided below. Oslo, June 2020 Geir Heierstad Institute Director Erik Henningsen Research Director 1 https://blogg.hioa.no/greengov/ 1 Table of Contents Preface ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 5 List of contributors......................................................................................................................... 6 1 Introduction: Cities and climate governance ..................................................................... 7 1.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 7 1.2 Aims and scope ................................................................................................................. 8 1.3 Analytical approach and methodology .............................................................................. 9 1.3.1 Analytical approach ....................................................................................................... 9 1.3.2 Methodology and approach ......................................................................................... 12 1.4 Introduction to the cities .................................................................................................. 13 2 Cape Town: Facilitating coalitions for climate change? .................................................. 14 2.1 Background to urban climate governance ...................................................................... 14 2.1.1 Political system, administration and organization of climate governance .................. 14 2.1.2 Municipal finances and engagement of key actors ..................................................... 15 2.1.3 Social and eco-climatic conditions .............................................................................. 15 2.2 Main climate governance approach: climate goals and organizational structure ........... 17 2.2.1 Climate goals and strategies ....................................................................................... 17 2.2.2 Evolution in climate goals and strategies .................................................................... 19 2.3 Creation of partnerships and governance networks ....................................................... 20 2.4 Preliminary observations on the emergence of collaborative governance and co- creational leadership ..................................................................................................... 22 3 Copenhagen: Fading international star? ........................................................................... 24 3.1 Background to urban climate governance ...................................................................... 24 3.1.1 Political system in Copenhagen .................................................................................. 24 3.1.2 Economy and business ............................................................................................... 25 3.1.3 Population, climate change and geography ................................................................ 25 3.1.4 Socio-eco-technical conditions of the city ................................................................... 27 3.2 Main climate governance approach: climate goals and organizational structure ........... 27 3.2.1 The first Climate Action Plan launched in 2002: “CO2 plan for Copenhagen 1990– 2010” ........................................................................................................................... 28 3.2.2 The Second Climate Action Plan launched in 2009: The Copenhagen Climate Plan 29 3.2.3 The third Climate strategy “CPH2025” ........................................................................ 31 3.2.4 Other plans relevant for achieving the aims formulated in climate plans
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Social Construction of Climate Change: Deconstructing the Climate Change Debate in Australia
    The Social Construction of Climate Change: Deconstructing the Climate Change Debate in Australia Author Hytten, Karen F Published 2013 Thesis Type Thesis (PhD Doctorate) School Griffith School of Environemnt DOI https://doi.org/10.25904/1912/1670 Copyright Statement The author owns the copyright in this thesis, unless stated otherwise. Downloaded from http://hdl.handle.net/10072/366505 Griffith Research Online https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au The Social Construction of Climate Change Deconstructing the Climate Change Debate in Australia _________________________________________________________________________ Karen F. Hytten B Env Mgt (Hons) 31 May 2013 Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Griffith School of Environment, Griffith University, Brisbane. i ii Abstract _________________________________________________________________________ Since the 1980s there has been a growing recognition of the significant risks associated with climate change. By 2007, the scientific evidence that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions were causing global warming was irrefutable. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its Fourth Assessment Report which describes in great detail the biophysical and social impacts of climate change, some of which are already being experienced. Many argue that Australia is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. It is also widely acknowledged that as one of the highest per-capita emitters in the world, Australia has a particular responsibility to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. However, despite this, Australia’s response to climate change has been largely inadequate, giving rise to a need for research into factors shaping this response. Research has identified the important role that discourses play in shaping perceptions of climate change and responses to the issue.
    [Show full text]
  • House of Representatives By-Elections 1901–2014
    RESEARCH PAPER SERIES, 2017–18 5 MARCH 2018 House of Representatives by-elections: 1901–2017 Stephen Barber Statistics and Mapping Section Executive summary This paper provides details of House of Representatives by-elections, from that held for Darling Downs on 14 September 1901 to the most recent held on 16 December 2017 for Bennelong. The following observations can be made about those by-elections: • there have been 151 by-elections, an average of 3.4 per parliament • the average number of nominations has grown over the years from 2.2 per by-election to 12.0 per by- election • in only four cases was a by-election contested by just a single candidate • an increasing tendency has been for governments to avoid contesting by-elections in their opponents’ safe seats • in only ten cases have the opposition party failed to contest a by-election • seventy-six of the by-elections followed the resignation of the member, 68 members died in office, there have been six voided elections, and one MP was expelled from the House • since 1949 resignations account for almost two-thirds of by-elections and over half the resignations have occurred in safe seats • on 35 occasions the party complexion of a seat has altered at a by-election • five of the losses have been by the opposition of the day • the average two-party preferred swing against the government of the day has been 3.8 per cent • since 1949 the largest two-party swing against a government occurred against Labor in Canberra in 1995. The largest swing to a government occurred to the Coalition in McPherson in 1981.
    [Show full text]
  • Sceptical Climate Part 2: CLIMATE SCIENCE in AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPERS
    October 2013 Sceptical Climate Part 2: CLIMATE SCIENCE IN AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPERS Professor Wendy Bacon Australian Centre for Independent Journalism Sceptical Climate Part 2: Climate Science in Australian Newspapers ISBN: 978-0-9870682-4-8 Release date: 30th October 2013 REPORT AUTHOR & DIRECTOR OF PROJECT: Professor Wendy Bacon (Australian Centre for Independent Journalism, University of Technology, Sydney) PROJECT MANAGER & RESEARCH SUPERVISOR: Arunn Jegan (Australian Centre for Independent Journalism) PROJECT & RESEARCH ADVISOR: Professor Chris Nash (Monash University) DESIGN AND WEB DEVELOPMENT Collagraph (http://collagraph.com.au) RESEARCHERS: Nicole Gooch, Katherine Cuttriss, Matthew Johnson, Rachel Sibley, Katerina Lebedev, Joel Rosenveig Holland, Federica Gasparini, Sophia Adams, Marcus Synott, Julia Wylie, Simon Phan & Emma Bacon ACIJ DIRECTOR: Associate Professor Tom Morton (Australian Centre for Independent Journalism, University of Technology, Sydney) ACIJ MANAGER: Jan McClelland (Australian Centre for Independent Journalism) THE AUSTRALIAN CENTRE FOR INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM The Sceptical Climate Report is a project by The Australian Centre for Independent Journalism, a critical voice on media politics, media policy, and the practice and theory of journalism. Follow ACIJ investigations, news and events at Investigate.org.au. This report is available for your use under a creative commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0) license, unless specifically noted. Feel free to quote, republish, backup, and move it to whatever platform works for you. Cover graphic: Global Annual Mean Surface Air Temperature Change, 1880 - 2012. Source: NASA GISS 2 Table of Contents 1. Preface . 5 2. Key Findings. 10 3. Background Issues . 28 4. Findings 4.1 Research design and methodology. 41 4.2 Quantity of climate science coverage .
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 Annual Report Contents
    2010 annual report Contents Welcome Movement building National Director letter 3 Movement building summary 18 Message from the Board 4 What people are saying 19 Vision and values 5 State by state 21 The year in highlights 6 Public engagement National Projects Online 23 Switched on Schools 7 Media 24 Climate Reality Week 8 Power Shift 9 Our People Election 11 Advocacy work 14 Partner groups 25 International 16 Staff and office volunteers 26 Volunteers by state 27 Supporters 28 » 2 Message from the National Director 2010 has been another year of intense growth and advertising kindly provided in-kind by Channel 10. impact for the AYCC as we challenged ourselves to Creative tactics like the Climate Elephant, one of do the impossible. The Age’s 2010 top ten political moments, captured national, local and regional press. The support of We delivered ambitious projects that engaged youth Graeme Wood was fundamental to this, with his across Australia. From Climate Reality Week, to investment underpinning our successful election Thousands of young people dedicated themselves Power Shift Summits, to our Federal election cam- campaign. to solving the climate crisis with the AYCC in 2010. paign, to our international advocacy, we delivered Thank you to our staff and volunteers – it has been beyond expectations. We will look back at 2010 as the time the AYCC very special to have the opportunity to work with so grew from an effective start-up to a fully-fledged many passionate, brilliant, caring people. Our movement has grown to 56,000 members – a organisation and movement. However as we’ve 12% rise from 2009.
    [Show full text]
  • For the Period
    The Senate QUESTIONS ON NOTICE SUMMARY 28 September 2010 to 5 August 2013 Copies may be obtained from the Senate Table Office, Telephone: 02 6277 3010 Fax: 02 6277 3448 Email: [email protected] Questions on Notice Summary is available online at: http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/statsnet/questions This summary includes information for the 43rd Parliament from 28 September 2010, when notice of the first question was given, to the prorogation of the Parliament on 5 August 2013. The answers to questions on notice ceased being published in Hansard from 28 February 2013; questions and answers can now be found online in the Questions database: www.aph.gov.au/SenateQON QUESTIONS ON NOTICE CONTENTS STATISTICS RELATING TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAGE NO. Total number and breakdown by senator………………………………………………………………5 Breakdown by minister/title Summary .................................................................................................................................... 6 Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry ............................................................................................ 9 Arts ........................................................................................................................................... 12 Assistant Treasurer ................................................................................................................... 13 Attorney-General ...................................................................................................................... 14 Broadband,
    [Show full text]
  • Australia 2007 by Aurelie Marfort
    International Snapshot: Australia 2007 By Aurelie Marfort IRV system was crucial to ensure democratic results for the last Australian federal legislative election. Introduction: On November 24 th 2007, Australia elected its House of Representatives with instant runoff voting (IRV), as it has for more than eight decades. After four straight election defeats, the Labor Party won a landslide majority of seats. Under IRV, Labor's initial 44% of first choices turned into a clear majority after considering the choices of supporters of third party candidates with too little support to win seats. The Green Party's 7.79% share of the national vote largely went to Labor in House races; that share earned several senate seats elected by proportional voting. Due in large part to compulsory voting, turnout was 94.77%; Australians rank near the top of national comparisons of voter satisfaction with their government. Background: IRV or preferential voting was introduced in Australia in 1918 to deal with the “spoiler” problem created by the rise of the Country Party. Australia’s democracy faced negative side effects with the increased voter choice, as the Country Party split the right-of-center vote in rural areas, thus allowing some left-of-center Labor Party candidates to win with a minority of votes. Prime Minister Bill Hughes’ conservative government enacted IRV so as to allow competition and choice between parties but without putting seats in jeopardy. Since 1918, use of IRV has gradually been extended, and it is now applied to the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament, in the federal, state and territory legislatures, to municipal elections, party primaries, and for some elections to corporate boards.
    [Show full text]
  • PARTY RULES? Dilemmas of Political Party Regulation in Australia
    PARTY RULES? Dilemmas of political party regulation in Australia PARTY RULES? Dilemmas of political party regulation in Australia Edited by Anika Gauja and Marian Sawer Published by ANU Press The Australian National University Acton ACT 2601, Australia Email: [email protected] This title is also available online at press.anu.edu.au National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Title: Party rules? : dilemmas of political party regulation in Australia / editors: Anika Gauja, Marian Sawer. ISBN: 9781760460761 (paperback) 9781760460778 (ebook) Subjects: Political parties--Australia. Political parties--Law and legislation--Australia. Political participation--Australia. Australia--Politics and government. Other Creators/Contributors: Gauja, Anika, editor. Sawer, Marian, 1946- editor. Dewey Number: 324.2994 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Cover design and layout by ANU Press. This edition © 2016 ANU Press Contents Figures . vii Tables . ix Abbreviations . xi Acknowledgements . xiii Contributors . xv 1 . Party rules: Promises and pitfalls . 1 Marian Sawer and Anika Gauja 2 . Resisting legal recognition and regulation: Australian parties as rational actors? . 37 Sarah John 3 . Party registration and political participation: Regulating small and ‘micro’ parties . .73 Norm Kelly 4 . Who gets what, when and how: The politics of resource allocation to parliamentary parties . 101 Yvonne Murphy 5 . Putting the cartel before the house? Public funding of parties in Queensland . 123 Graeme Orr 6 . More regulated, more level? Assessing the impact of spending and donation caps on Australian State elections .
    [Show full text]
  • Supplementary Submission on the Conduct of the 2007 Federal Election
    SUBMISSION 51 Anthony van der Craats Supplementary Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters Department of House of Representatives PO Box 6021 Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600 AUSTRALIA Phone: 61 2 6277 2374 Fax: 61 2 6277 4710 email: [email protected] Supplementary submission on the conduct of the 2007 Federal Election Further to my submission and presentation on Monday August 11, 2008 in Melbourne. As requested please find attached a summary count sheet analysis of the Australian Senate Election 2007 based on the proposed “Wright System” re-iterative count At the hearing of the Committee on August 11, 2008 the Chairman, Mr. Melham raised the question. “Would the results of the 2007 election have changed using the system I proposed?” In undertaking further analysis based on the published data provided by the Australian Electoral commission I can report that with the exception of Queensland the overall election results are the same as that derived as a result of the current system. HOWEVER Queensland would have produced a different result under the proposed system. - 1 - Principles applied Mr Donaldson's raised the question of principles associated with the proposed counting system. In addition to the identified principle of one vote one value, I would like to add the following: The Wright System fulfils the two principles identified by Brian Meek [5]:: • Principle 1. If a candidate is excluded, all ballots are treated as if that candidate had never stood. • Principle 2. If a candidate has achieved the quota, he retains a fixed proportion of every vote received, and transfers the surplus remainder to the next (non-excluded) continuing candidate, the retained total equaling the quota In order to fulfill principle number one it is necessary to undertake a re-iterative count.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change in a New Democratic Age: Why We Need More, Not Less, Democratic Participation
    PERSPECTIVES Climate Change in a New Democratic Age: Why we need more, not less, democratic participation Dr Randal G Stewart December 2013 9 Authored by: Whitlam Institute Dr Randal G Stewart Randal Stewart works on political nous, public policy, Perspectives strategic management and public affairs. His main focus is on government but he also consults on organisation Perspectives is a series of essays from the Whitlam strategy and public affairs in the private sector. Some of Institute. Perspectives offers respected public the emerging areas that Randal applies his experience intellectuals an opportunity to canvass ideas and to include: put their views forward on the policies that would • Awareness of the importance of political nous in the shape a better, fairer Australia. The series is designed to public and private sector encourage creative, even bold, thinking and occasionally • Enhancing public value as strategic focus in the public new ways of looking at the challenges of the 21st sector Century in the hope that the enthusiasm and insights of • Improving citizen engagement and empowerment in these authors sparks further thought and debate among the public sector and corporate social responsibility in policy makers and across the community. the private sector • Managing frameworks of performance information in the public and private sector • Deepening the relationship between regulation and About the outcomes thinking in the public sector. Whitlam Institute Randal worked in politics at a young age working his way up through a political party. He started as an adviser to federal and state politicians observing politics from The Whitlam Institute the inside. After significant postings he embarked on an within the University academic career beginning in development studies and of Western Sydney living in the Highlands of PNG while researching a PhD on at Parramatta the coffee industry in PNG and Tanzania.
    [Show full text]
  • Labor Studies Journal
    Labor Studies Journal http://lsj.sagepub.com/ Toward a Theory of Union Environmental Politics: Unions and Climate Action in Australia Darryn Snell and Peter Fairbrother Labor Studies Journal 2011 36: 83 originally published online 20 December 2010 DOI: 10.1177/0160449X10392526 The online version of this article can be found at: http://lsj.sagepub.com/content/36/1/83 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com On behalf of: United Association For Labor Education Additional services and information for Labor Studies Journal can be found at: Email Alerts: http://lsj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://lsj.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://lsj.sagepub.com/content/36/1/83.refs.html Downloaded from lsj.sagepub.com by guest on April 27, 2011 Labor Studies Journal 36(1) 83 –103 Toward a Theory of Union © 2011 UALE Reprints and permission: http://www. Environmental Politics: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0160449X10392526 Unions and Climate Action http://lsj.sagepub.com in Australia Darryn Snell1 and Peter Fairbrother1 Abstract Trade unions across a range of countries are engaging in a new environmental politics. This article considers emerging environmental politics among Australian unions who have sought to advance policy efforts to reduce carbon emissions and green jobs while minimizing the social impacts of a more carbon-constrained environment on jobs and regions. Against this background, this article seeks to advance a theory of union environmental politics by considering the organizational constraints unions operate within, their relationship with local communities and governments, and how they have sought to extend their capacities and organizational form through confederations and alliance-building with other actors.
    [Show full text]
  • Dilemmas of Political Party Regulation in Australia
    PARTY RULES? Dilemmas of political party regulation in Australia PARTY RULES? Dilemmas of political party regulation in Australia Edited by Anika Gauja and Marian Sawer Published by ANU Press The Australian National University Acton ACT 2601, Australia Email: [email protected] This title is also available online at press.anu.edu.au National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Title: Party rules? : dilemmas of political party regulation in Australia / editors: Anika Gauja, Marian Sawer. ISBN: 9781760460761 (paperback) 9781760460778 (ebook) Subjects: Political parties--Australia. Political parties--Law and legislation--Australia. Political participation--Australia. Australia--Politics and government. Other Creators/Contributors: Gauja, Anika, editor. Sawer, Marian, 1946- editor. Dewey Number: 324.2994 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Cover design and layout by ANU Press. This edition © 2016 ANU Press Contents Figures . vii Tables . ix Abbreviations . xi Acknowledgements . xiii Contributors . xv 1 . Party rules: Promises and pitfalls . 1 Marian Sawer and Anika Gauja 2 . Resisting legal recognition and regulation: Australian parties as rational actors? . 37 Sarah John 3 . Party registration and political participation: Regulating small and ‘micro’ parties . .73 Norm Kelly 4 . Who gets what, when and how: The politics of resource allocation to parliamentary parties . 101 Yvonne Murphy 5 . Putting the cartel before the house? Public funding of parties in Queensland . 123 Graeme Orr 6 . More regulated, more level? Assessing the impact of spending and donation caps on Australian State elections .
    [Show full text]
  • ANSWERS to QUESTIONS on NOTICE Finance and Administration Portfolio Australian Electoral Commission Budget Estimates Hearing – May 2007
    Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Finance and Administration Portfolio Australian Electoral Commission Budget Estimates Hearing – May 2007 Question: F82 Outcome 2, Output 2.1.3 Topic: FAD returns re CFMEU and AMWU Hansard page: N/A Written Question on Notice F 82 (MURRAY) Please provide the names of current AEC registered political parties. Please indicate any that are new registrations since December 2006, and the names of any de- registered political parties that have re-registered or are in the process of re- registering. Answer: The current list of registered political parties is as follows: • Australian Democrats • Australian Greens • Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party • Australian Labor Party (ACT Branch) • Australian Labor Party (ALP) • Australian Labor Party (N.S.W. Branch) • Australian Labor Party (Northern Territory) Branch • Australian Labor Party (South Australian Branch) • Australian Labor Party (State of Queensland) • Australian Labor Party (Tasmanian Branch) • Australian Labor Party (Victorian Branch) • Australian Labor Party (Western Australian Branch) • Country Labor Party • Carers Alliance • Christian Democratic Party; • Citizens Electoral Council of Australia • Climate Change Coalition • Democratic Labor Party (DLP) of Australia • Family First Party • Liberal Party (W.A. Division) Inc. • Liberal Party of Australia • Liberal Party of Australia (S.A. Division) • Liberal Party of Australia (Victorian Division) • Liberal Party of Australia - ACT Division • Liberal Party of Australia - Queensland Division • Liberal Party of Australia - Tasmanian Division • Liberal Party of Australia, NSW Division • Liberty and Democracy Party • National Party of Australia • National Party of Australia (Queensland) • National Party of Australia (S.A.) Inc. • National Party of Australia (WA) Inc • National Party of Australia - N.S.W.
    [Show full text]