Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/14259
Record ID: b3241884-8739-44bf-9b6b-796764e47e3b
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorChappell, Louiseen
dc.contributor.authorCurtin, Jenniferen
dc.date.accessioned2022-06-30T23:12:00Z-
dc.date.available2022-06-30T23:12:00Z-
dc.date.issued2013en
dc.identifier.citation43 (1), Winter 2013en
dc.identifier.citationVolume 43, Issue 1en
dc.identifier.issn1747-7107en
dc.identifier.urihttps://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/14259-
dc.description.abstractDoes federalism make a difference to policy making in the area of family and domestic violence (FDV)? This article explores this question through a comparison of Australia and New Zealand whose state architecture aside from federalism is very similar. It argues that Australian federalism has provided laboratories for innovative policy making and the continual articulation of a progressive policy response to FDV. By contrast, in New Zealand subnational experiments have occurred, but continuous progressive policy responses have been less evident because centralization accentuates the need for left-wing governments to substantively advance the issue.en
dc.languageenen
dc.publisherOxford University Pressen
dc.relation.ispartofPublius: The Journal of Federalismen
dc.subjectLegal issuesen
dc.subjectLegislation analysisen
dc.subjectPolicyen
dc.titleDoes federalism matter? Evaluating state architecture and family and domestic violence policy in Australia and New Zealanden
dc.title.alternativePublius: The Journal of Federalismen
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.doihttps://dx.doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjs030en
dc.identifier.catalogid2585en
dc.subject.keywordJournal article/research paperen
dc.subject.keywordDuplicateen
dc.subject.keywordnew_recorden
dc.subject.keywordNationalen
dc.description.notes<p>This article discusses the differences in policy which exist between Australia and New Zealand in the area of family and domestic violence (FDV). The premise is interrogated that Australia, a centralised federation, and New Zealand, a unitary state, have differing strengths and weaknesses in their respective FDV policy based on the structure of each nation&rsquo;s government.<br /><br />It is suggested that Australia&rsquo;s government structure provides greater opportunity for innovation in policy making but also greater difficulties in coordination of policy, especially in the area of Indigenous FDV. In New Zealand, policy coordination has not been a problem but the introduction of progressive policies has depended on left-wing governments being in place.</p>en
dc.identifier.sourcePublius: The Journal of Federalismen
dc.date.entered2013-10-28en
dc.description.contentsFraming FDV<br/ >Federalism: how and why it matters<br/ >Australian and New Zealand state architecture<br/ >FDV: Australian and New Zealand experiences<br/ >Does federalism matter to FDV law and policy making?en
dc.publisher.placeNew Yorken
Appears in Collections:Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in ANROWS library are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Google Media

Google ScholarTM

Who's citing