Building a successful partnership to increase affordable rental housing supply in Queensland

Accessibility to housing for low to moderate income groups in Australia has been experiencing a severe decline since 2001. On the supply side, the public sector has been reducing its commitment to the direct provision of public housing. Despite high demand for affordable housing, there has been limited supply generated by non-government housing providers. One possible solution to promote an increase in affordable housing supply, like other infrastructure, is through the development of multi-stakeholder partnerships and private financing. This research aims to identify current issues underlying decision-making criteria for building multi-stakeholder partnerships to deliver affordable housing projects. It also investigates strategies for minimising risk and ensuring the financial outcomes of these partnership arrangements. A mix of qualitative in-depth interviews and quantitative surveys has been used as the main method to explore stakeholder experiences regarding their involvement in partnership arrangements in the affordable housing sector in Queensland. Two sets of interviews were conducted following an exploratory pilot study: one set in 2003-2004 and the other in 2007-2008. There were nineteen respondents representing government, private and not-for-profit organisations in the first stage interviews and surveys. The second stage interviews were focussed on twenty-two housing providers in South East Queensland. Initial analyses have been conducted using thematic and statistical analyses. This study extends the use of existing decision making tools and combines the use of a Soft System Framework to analyse the ideal state questionnaires using qualitative thematic analysis. Soft System Methodology (SSM) has been used to analyse this unstructured complex problem by using systematic thinking to develop a conceptual model and carrying it to the real world situations to solve the problem. This research found that the diversity of stakeholder capability and their level of risk acceptance will allow partnerships to develop the best synergies and a degree of collaboration which achieves the required financial return within acceptable risk parameters. However, some of the negativity attached to future commitment to such partnerships has been found to be the anticipation of a worse outcome than that expected from independent action. Many interviewees agree that housing providers' fear of financial risk and community rejection has been central to dampening their enthusiasm for entering such investment projects. The creation of a mixed-use development structure will mitigate both risk and return as the commercial income will subsidise the affordable housing development and will normalise concentration of marginalised low-income people who live in a prime location with an award winning design. In addition, tenant support schemes and rent-to-buy incentive programs will encourage them to secure their tenancies and significantly reduce the risk of rent arrears and property damage. There is also a breakthrough investment vehicle offered by the social developer which sells the non-physical but financial product to individual and institutional investors to mitigate further financial risk. Finally, this study recommends modification of the current value-for-money framework in favour of broader partnership arrangements which are more closely aligned with risk minimisation strategies.

Nurses driving change to improve access to education and quality in lcinical teaching : A partnership between Australia and Viet Nam

In Viet Nam, standards of nursing care fail to meet international competency standards. This increases risks to patient safety (eg. hospital acquired infection), consequently the Ministry of Health identified the need to strengthen nurse education in Viet Nam. This paper presents experiences of a piloted clinical teaching model developed in Ha Noi, to strengthen nurse led institutional capacity for in-service education and clinical teaching. Historically 90% of nursing education was conducted by physicians and professional development in hospitals for nurses was limited. There was minimal communication between hospitals and nursing schools about expectations of students and assessment and quality of the learning experience. As a result when students came to the clinical sites, no-one understood how to plan their learning objectives and utilise teaching and learning approaches appropriate to their level. Therefore student learning outcomes were variable. They focussed on procedures and techniques and “learning how to do” rather than learning how to plan, implement and evaluate patient care. This project is part of a multi-component capacity building program designed to improve nurse education in Viet Nam. The project was funded jointly by Queensland University of Technology (QUT) and the Australian Agency for International Development. Its aim was to develop a collaborative clinically-based model of teaching to create an environment that encourages evidence-based, student-centred clinical learning. Accordingly, strategies introduced promoted clinical teaching of competency based nursing practice utilising the regionally endorsed nurse core competency standards. Thirty nurse teachers from Viet Duc University Hospital and Hanoi Medical College participated in the program. These nurses and nurse teachers undertook face to face education in three workshops, and completed three assessment items. Assessment was applied, where participants integrated the concepts learned in each workshop and completed assessment tasks related to planning, implementing and evaluating teaching in the clinical area. Twenty of these participants were then selected to undertake a two week study tour in Brisbane, Australia where the clinical teaching model was refined and an action plan developed to integrate into both organisations with possible implementation across Viet Nam. Participants on this study tour also experienced clinical teaching and learning at QUT by attending classes held at the university, and were able to visit selected hospitals to experience clinical teaching in these settings as well. Effectiveness of the project was measured throughout the implementation phase and in follow up visits to the clinical site. To date changes have been noted on an individual and organisational level. There is also significant planning underway to incorporate the clinical teaching model developed across the organisation and how this may be implemented in other regions. Two participants have also been involved in disseminating aspects of this approach to clinical teaching in Ho Chi Minh, with further plans for more in-depth dissemination to occur throughout the country.

Confronting the shortage of skilled and professional workers : A large scale industry-school partnership initiative

In most of the advanced economies, students are losing interest in careers especially in engineering and related industries. Hence, western economies are confronting a critical skilled labour shortage in areas of technology, science and engineering. The aim of this paper is to document how the organisational and institutional elements of one industry-school partnerships initiative – The Gateway Schools Program - contribute to productive knowledge sharing and networking. In particular this paper focuses on an initiative of an Australian State government in response to a perceived crisis around the skills shortage in an economy transitioning from a localised to a global knowledge production economy. The Gateway Schools initiative signals the first sustained attempt in Australia to incorporate schools into production networks through strategic partnerships linking them to partner organisations at the industry level. We provide case examples of how four schools operationalise the partnerships with the mining and energy industries and how these partnerships as knowledge assets impact the delivery of curriculum and capacity building among teachers. A program theory approach to analysis, informed by theoretical perspectives of Bailey (1994), Bagnall (2007) and Walsh (2004) was adopted. Each of these theorists provides a related but different perspective on the establishment, purpose, and effectiveness respectively of partnerships. Our ultimate goal is to define those characteristics of successful partnerships that do contribute to enhanced interest and engagement by students in those careers that are currently experiencing critical shortages.

A Critical Perspective of the Indonesian Institutional Framework for PPP Toll Roads

The development of toll roads in Indonesia started around 1978. Initially, the management and development of toll roads sat directly under the Government of Indonesia (GoI) being undertaken through PT JasaMarga, a state owned enterprise specifically established to provide toll roads. Due to the slow growth and low capability of toll roads to fulfil infrastructure needs in the first ten years of operation (only 2.688kms/year), GoI changed its strategy in 1989 to one of using private sector participation for roads delivery through a Public Private Partnership (PPP) scheme. In this latter period, PT JasaMarga had two roles, both as regulator on behalf of the private sector as well as being the operator. However, from 1989 to 2004 the growth rate of toll roads actually decreased further to 2.300kms/year. Facing this challenge of low growth rate of toll roads, in 2004GoI changed the toll road management system and the role of regulator was returned to the Government through the establishment of the Toll Road Regulatory Agency (BPJT). GoI also amended the institutional framework to strengthen the toll road management system. Despite the introduction of this new institutional framework, the growth of toll roads still showed insignificant change. This problem in toll road development has generated an urgent need for research into this issue. The aim of the research is to understand the performance of the new institutional framework in enhancing PPP procured toll road development. The methodology of the research was to undertake a questionnaire survey distributed to private sector respondents involved in toll road development. The results of this study show that there are several problems inherent in the institutional framework, but the most significant problem comes from the uncertainty of the function of the strategic executive body in the land expropriation process.

Cooperative education through a large scale industry-school partnership

In most of the advanced economies, students are losing interest in careers especially in en¬gineering and related industries. Hence, western economies are confronting a critical skilled labour shortage in areas of technology, science and engineering. Decisions about career pathways are made as early as the primary years of schooling and hence cooperation be¬tween industry and schools to attract students to the professions is crucial. The aim of this paper is to document how the organisational and institutional elements of one industry-school partnerships initiative — The Gateway Schools Program — contribute to productive knowledge sharing and networking. In particular this paper focuses on an initiative of an Australian State government in response to a perceived crisis around the skills shortage in an economy transitioning from a localised to a global knowledge production economy. The Gateway Schools initiative signals the first sustained attempt in Australia to incorporate schools into production networks through strategic partnerships linking them to partner organisations at the industry level. We provide case examples of how four schools opera¬tionalise the partnerships with the minerals and energy industries and how these partner¬ships as knowledge assets impact the delivery of curriculum and capacity building among teachers. Our ultimate goal is to define those characteristics of successful partnerships that do contribute to enhanced interest and engagement by students in those careers that are currently experiencing critical shortages.

Knowledge transfer through a transnational program partnership between Indonesian and Australian universities

As transnational programs are often advocated as a knowledge transfer opportunity between the partner universities, this case study investigated the knowledge transfer (KT) processes between Indonesian and Australian universities through an undergraduate transnational program partnership (TPP). An inter-organisational KT theoretical framework from the business sector was adapted and used to guide the study. The data were generated through semi-structured interviews with key university officers and document analysis from two partner universities. Based on the thematic analysis of the data, the findings demonstrated that the curriculum mapping process facilitated KT. However, different intentions of the partner universities in establishing the program led to declining interest to conduct more KT when expectations were not met. The Indonesian university’s existing knowledge, acquired from other sources through processes that were serendipitous and based on individual lecturers’ personal experience, meant that KT opportunities through the TPP were not always pursued despite written agreement to exchange knowledge with the Australian partner. While KT most evidently resulted in institutional capacity development for the Indonesian university’s school that managed the TPP, dissemination of knowledge to other units within the university was more challenging due to communication problems between the units. Hence, other universities seeking to conduct KT through TPPs need to understand each partner university's intention in establishing the partnerships, identify the institutions' needs before seeking knowledge input from the partner university and improve the communication between and within the universities for sustainable benefits.

Greenwashing the Trans-Pacific Partnership: Fossil fuels, the environment, and climate change

There has been much controversy over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – a plurilateral trade agreement involving a dozen nations from throughout the Pacific Rim – and its impact upon the environment, biodiversity, and climate change. The secretive treaty negotiations involve Australia and New Zealand; countries from South East Asia such as Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, and Japan; the South American nations of Peru and Chile; and the members of the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Canada, Mexico and the United States. There was an agreement reached between the parties in October 2015. The participants asserted: ‘We expect this historic agreement to promote economic growth, support higher-paying jobs; enhance innovation, productivity and competitiveness; raise living standards; reduce poverty in our countries; and to promote transparency, good governance, and strong labor and environmental protections.’ The final texts of the agreement were published in November 2015. There has been discussion as to whether other countries – such as Indonesia, the Philippines, and South Korea – will join the deal. There has been much debate about the impact of this proposed treaty upon intellectual property, the environment, biodiversity and climate change. There have been similar concerns about the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) – a proposed trade agreement between the United States and the European Union. In 2011, the United States Trade Representative developed a Green Paper on trade, conservation, and the environment in the context of the TPP. In its rhetoric, the United States Trade Representative has maintained that it has been pushing for strong, enforceable environmental standards in the TPP. In a key statement in 2014, the United States Trade Representative Mike Froman insisted: ‘The United States’ position on the environment in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations is this: environmental stewardship is a core American value, and we will insist on a robust, fully enforceable environment chapter in the TPP or we will not come to agreement.’ The United States Trade Representative maintained: ‘Our proposals in the TPP are centered around the enforcement of environmental laws, including those implementing multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) in TPP partner countries, and also around trailblazing, first-ever conservation proposals that will raise standards across the region’. Moreover, the United States Trade Representative asserted: ‘Furthermore, our proposals would enhance international cooperation and create new opportunities for public participation in environmental governance and enforcement.’ The United States Trade Representative has provided this public outline of the Environment Chapter of the TPP: A meaningful outcome on environment will ensure that the agreement appropriately addresses important trade and environment challenges and enhances the mutual supportiveness of trade and environment. The Trans-Pacific Partnership countries share the view that the environment text should include effective provisions on trade-related issues that would help to reinforce environmental protection and are discussing an effective institutional arrangement to oversee implementation and a specific cooperation framework for addressing capacity building needs. They also are discussing proposals on new issues, such as marine fisheries and other conservation issues, biodiversity, invasive alien species, climate change, and environmental goods and services. Mark Linscott, an assistant Trade Representative testified: ‘An environment chapter in the TPP should strengthen country commitments to enforce their environmental laws and regulations, including in areas related to ocean and fisheries governance, through the effective enforcement obligation subject to dispute settlement.’ Inside US Trade has commented: ‘While not initially expected to be among the most difficult areas, the environment chapter has emerged as a formidable challenge, partly due to disagreement over the United States proposal to make environmental obligations binding under the TPP dispute settlement mechanism’. Joshua Meltzer from the Brookings Institute contended that the trade agreement could be a boon for the protection of the environment in the Pacific Rim: Whether it is depleting fisheries, declining biodiversity or reduced space in the atmosphere for Greenhouse Gas emissions, the underlying issue is resource scarcity. And in a world where an additional 3 billion people are expected to enter the middle class over the next 15 years, countries need to find new and creative ways to cooperate in order to satisfy the legitimate needs of their population for growth and opportunity while using resources in a manner that is sustainable for current and future generations. The TPP parties already represent a diverse range of developed and developing countries. Should the TPP become a free trade agreement of the Asia-Pacific region, it will include the main developed and developing countries and will be a strong basis for building a global consensus on these trade and environmental issues. The TPP has been promoted by its proponents as a boon to the environment. The United States Trade Representative has maintained that the TPP will protect the environment: ‘The United States’ position on the environment in the TPP negotiations is this: environmental stewardship is a core American value, and we will insist on a robust, fully enforceable environment chapter in the TPP or we will not come to agreement.’ The United States Trade Representative discussed ‘Trade for a Greener World’ on World Environment Day. Andrew Robb, at the time the Australian Trade and Investment Minister, vowed that the TPP will contain safeguards for the protection of the environment. In November 2015, after the release of the TPP text, Rohan Patel, the Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, sought to defend the environmental credentials of the TPP. He contended that the deal had been supported by the Nature Conservancy, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, the World Wildlife Fund, and World Animal Protection. The United States Congress, though, has been conflicted by the United States Trade Representative’s arguments about the TPP and the environment. In 2012, members of the United States Congress - including Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and John Kerry (D-MA) – wrote a letter, arguing that the trade agreement needs to provide strong protection for the environment: ‘We believe that a '21st century agreement' must have an environment chapter that guarantees ongoing sustainable trade and creates jobs, and this is what American businesses and consumers want and expect also.’ The group stressed that ‘A binding and enforceable TPP environment chapter that stands up for American interests is critical to our support of the TPP’. The Congressional leaders maintained: ‘We believe the 2007 bipartisan congressional consensus on environmental provisions included in recent trade agreements should serve as the framework for the environment chapter of the TPP.’ In 2013, senior members of the Democratic leadership expressed their opposition to granting President Barack Obama a fast-track authority in respect of the TPP House of Representatives Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said: ‘No on fast-track – Camp-Baucus – out of the question.’ Senator Majority leader Harry Reid commented: ‘I’m against Fast-Track: Everyone would be well-advised to push this right now.’ Senator Elizabeth Warren has been particularly critical of the process and the substance of the negotiations in the TPP: From what I hear, Wall Street, pharmaceuticals, telecom, big polluters and outsourcers are all salivating at the chance to rig the deal in the upcoming trade talks. So the question is, Why are the trade talks secret? You’ll love this answer. Boy, the things you learn on Capitol Hill. I actually have had supporters of the deal say to me ‘They have to be secret, because if the American people knew what was actually in them, they would be opposed. Think about that. Real people, people whose jobs are at stake, small-business owners who don’t want to compete with overseas companies that dump their waste in rivers and hire workers for a dollar a day—those people, people without an army of lobbyists—they would be opposed. I believe if people across this country would be opposed to a particular trade agreement, then maybe that trade agreement should not happen. The Finance Committee in the United States Congress deliberated over the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations in 2014. The new chair Ron Wyden has argued that there needs to be greater transparency in trade. Nonetheless, he has mooted the possibility of a ‘smart-track’ to reconcile the competing demands of the Obama Administration, and United States Congress. Wyden insisted: ‘The new breed of trade challenges spawned over the last generation must be addressed in imaginative new policies and locked into enforceable, ambitious, job-generating trade agreements.’ He emphasized that such agreements ‘must reflect the need for a free and open Internet, strong labor rights and environmental protections.’ Elder Democrat Sander Levin warned that the TPP failed to provide proper protection for the environment: The TPP parties are considering a different structure to protect the environment than the one adopted in the May 10 Agreement, which directly incorporated seven multilateral environmental agreements into the text of past trade agreements. While the form is less important than the substance, the TPP must provide an overall level of environmental protection that upholds and builds upon the May 10 standard, including fully enforceable obligations. But many of our trading partners are actively seeking to weaken the text to the point of falling short of that standard, including on key issues like conservation. Nonetheless, 2015, President Barack Obama was able to secure the overall support of the United States Congress for his ‘fast-track’ authority. This was made possible by the Republicans and dissident Democrats. Notably, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden switched sides, and was transformed from a critic of the TPP to an apologist for the TPP. For their part, green political parties and civil society organisations have been concerned about the secretive nature of the negotiations; and the substantive implications of the treaty for the environment. Environmental groups and climate advocates have been sceptical of the environmental claims made by the White House for the TPP. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, the Australian Greens and the Green Party of Canada have released a joint declaration on the TPP observing: ‘More than just another trade agreement, the TPP provisions could hinder access to safe, affordable medicines, weaken local content rules for media, stifle high-tech innovation, and even restrict the ability of future governments to legislate for the good of public health and the environment’. In the United States, civil society groups such as the Sierra Club, Public Citizen, WWF, the Friends of the Earth, the Rainforest Action Network and 350.org have raised concerns about the TPP and the environment. Allison Chin, President of the Sierra Club, complained about the lack of transparency, due process, and public participation in the TPP talks: ‘This is a stealth affront to the principles of our democracy.’ Maude Barlow’s The Council of Canadians has also been concerned about the TPP and environmental justice. New Zealand Sustainability Council executive director Simon Terry said the agreement showed ‘minimal real gains for nature’. A number of organisations have joined a grand coalition of civil society organisations, which are opposed to the grant of a fast-track. On the 15th January 2013, WikiLeaks released the draft Environment Chapter of the TPP - along with a report by the Chairs of the Environmental Working Group. Julian Assange, WikiLeaks' publisher, stated: ‘Today's WikiLeaks release shows that the public sweetener in the TPP is just media sugar water.’ He observed: ‘The fabled TPP environmental chapter turns out to be a toothless public relations exercise with no enforcement mechanism.’ This article provides a critical examination of the draft Environment Chapter of the TPP. The overall argument of the article is that the Environment Chapter of the TPP is an exercise in greenwashing – it is a public relations exercise by the United States Trade Representative, rather than a substantive regime for the protection of the environment in the Pacific Rim. Greenwashing has long been a problem in commerce, in which companies making misleading and deceptive claims about the environment. In his 2012 book, Greenwash: Big Brands and Carbon Scams, Guy Pearse considers the rise of green marketing and greenwashing. Government greenwashing is also a significant issue. In his book Storms of My Grandchildren, the climate scientist James Hansen raises his concerns about government greenwashing. Such a problem is apparent with the TPP – in which there was a gap between the assertions of the United States Government, and the reality of the agreement. This article contends that the TPP fails to meet the expectations created by President Barack Obama, the White House, and the United States Trade Representative about the environmental value of the agreement. First, this piece considers the relationship of the TPP to multilateral environmental treaties. Second, it explores whether the provisions in respect of the environment are enforceable. Third, this article examines the treatment of trade and biodiversity in the TPP. Fourth, this study considers the question of marine capture fisheries. Fifth, there is an evaluation of the cursory text in the TPP on conservation. Sixth, the article considers trade in environmental services under the TPP. Seventh, this article highlights the tensions between the TPP and substantive international climate action. It is submitted that the TPP undermines effective and meaningful government action and regulation in respect of climate change. The conclusion also highlights that a number of other chapters of the TPP will impact upon the protection of the environment – including the Investment Chapter, the Intellectual Property Chapter, the Technical Barriers to Trade Chapter, and the text on public procurement.

An institutional understanding of triple bottom line evaluations and the use of social and environmental metrics

Measuring social and environmental metrics of property is necessary for meaningful triple bottom line (TBL) assessments. This paper demonstrates how relevant indicators derived from environmental rating systems provide for reasonably straightforward collations of performance scores that support adjustments based on a sliding scale. It also highlights the absence of a corresponding consensus of important social metrics representing the third leg of the TBL tripod. Assessing TBL may be unavoidably imprecise, but if valuers and managers continue to ignore TBL concerns, their assessments may soon be less relevant given the emerging institutional milieu informing and reflecting business practices and society expectations.