Transcript Slide 1

The Importance of Change:
What’s in it for Local
Government and Communities?
Dr Bligh Grant
UNE Centre for Local Government
Change? Potentially, lots of it in NSW Local
Government Sector
At least 5 major review processes:
1. ‘Destination 2036’ Consultative Reform Process;
2. Local Government Acts Taskforce to ‘rewrite’ the
1993 Local Government Act (NSW) and the
1988 City of Sydney Act;
3. Independent Local Government Review Panel;
4. NSW Planning System Review +Green Paper
5. NSW Auditor General’s Monitoring Local
Government Report
Summary:
 All of these potential changes are imposed
UPON local government, rather than being
initiated BY individual local governments;
 Australian local government is generally treated
as expedient (or instrumental) rather than
political (or ethical) in its own right (historically
understandable – see A.J. Brown [2008]!!);
 Even claims about local democracy (‘local voice’
+ ‘local choice’) are grounded in the allocation of
preferences, rather than being about politics,
properly conceived.
‘Place-shaping’ + ‘Localism’ as Political Ideologies

Internationally (U.K., derived from the U.S.A.)
big push for ‘identity’ or ‘ideational’ politics based
on place to be a part of local governance, LED
BY local governments (larger, fiscally
empowered local governments) with

Strong leadership and

Devolution of authority to LGs.

Easy to be cynical about this (devolution of
authority = cost shifting).

However: Potential has been demonstrated in
case studies (as I hope to show...).
Legislative basis for ‘place-shaping’ in Australia
 ALG are ‘creatures of statute’ and as such subject to
arbitrary reconfiguration + oversight;
 HOWEVER: LGB in ALL Australian jurisdictions are
now required to produce Community Strategic
Plans (i.e.: 10+ year ‘visions’) as an element to
complex, inter-jurisdictional planning ‘webs’ (Grant,
Dollery + Kortt, 2011);
 Interesting inter-jurisdictional comparisons
(‘institutional mimesis’, or COPYING);
 Again, room to be cynical about this (how much
planning is too much?; ‘Tyranny of Community’?)
Case Study: City of Greater Geraldton, WA
 One of 7 finalists for the Reinhard Mohn Prize (award
offered by the Bertelsmann Stiftung, a German
philanthropic organisation. ‘Geraldton 2029 and
Beyond’ for ‘Vitalising Democracy through
Participation’ (157 entries).
 Initially, Bligh was EXTREMELY SKEPTICAL about
this project:
 Had all the hallmarks of an expensive, outsourced
community plan;
 International consultants employed (e.g.: Charles Landry,
author of The Creative City: A Toolkit for Urban Innovators
(2008)
 What does creativity have to do with a mining boom??
City of Greater Geraldton, WA
1. Spatial + Socio-economic Characteristics
 Result of two consecutive AMALGAMATIONS:
 City of Geraldton and the Shire of Greenough in 2007;
 City of Geraldton-Greenough with the Shire of Mullewa
 City of Greater Geraldton in July 2011 – i.e.: ANTIIDENTITY FORCES
 Significant Economic Growth due to mining boom,
e.g.:
 mean taxable income increased by 14.6% in GeraldtonGreenough and by almost 40% in Mullewa (ABS,
2009/10).
 Private sector homes increased by 44.5% in GeraldtonGreenough and a recorded $180,000 or an increase of a
factor of 6 in Mullewa (ABS, 2009/10).
 Worried about social problems a la The Pilbara
2. Legislative Framework: Fabricating
Community?
The information required, processes and outputs of Strategic Community Plan development are detailed below
What do I have to gather?
What do I do?
What do I end up with?
Identified community well-being issues
Community engagement – stakeholders,
methods
Identified social inclusion issues
Community long term visioning and
priority setting
Internal strategy and research on
emerging trends
Strategy and research of trends and long
term impacts
Demographics State/National legislation
or policy
Review and understand the
interdependencies between community
planning, services, assets and land-use
Strategic Community Plan (10+ years)
-Vision
- Priorities
- Objectives
- Strategies
- Assessment.

Identified services expectations

Identified asset expectations

Identified land use expectations

Identification of how we know the
plan is succeeding

Informing strategies.
Known State/National events that may
impact
Local area/place planning information
Local area/place-planning processes
Quadruple bottom-line analysis: Social,
Economic, Environmental, Civic
Leadership
Changing external factors such as global
Review and understand broad resource
events that may impact on WA/community implications of Strategic Community Plan
Strategic community plan reviews
3. Community Engagement in Geraldton
14 other government agencies + members of
‘community’ + media (local paper) + consultants;
 Community Champions’ running ‘World Cafes’
 Deliberative Survey Poll
 Online deliberation with the City Staff and Community
 Participatory Budgeting – Preliminary Phase
 Youth Online Involvement
 21st Century Town Hall Meeting
 Alignment of the Strategic Plan and the Budget
 Community Champions – ‘Open Space Technology’ training
for facilitation
4. Strategic Directions (x 10) and Recommendations
1. Welcome and facilitate all sectors of the Community to
participate in the City’s cultural life, e.g.: Develop an ‘Ageing
Together’ plan;
• 2. Deliver access to facilities to support those living in, visiting
and working in a creative City, e.g.: Develop an Art Civic
Studio for families
• 3. Promote the City of Geraldton-Greenough as a ‘City for the
Arts’ and as a Regional recreational hub, e.g.: Develop and
stage a ‘Windfest’ to celebrate and promote Geraldton’s
unique landscape and lifestyle
• 4. Diversify the economy, e.g.: Develop a Technology Park
Strategic Directions + Recommendations
• 5. Protect Geraldton-Greenough’s distinctive physical
character ... Heritage ... and identity, e.g.: engage community
members on the planning and design teams for recreational
and public spaces
• 6. Attract investment by creating live/work zones for artists,
e.g.: encourage the development of affordable housing and
live/work space for artists and curators
• 7. Stimulate trade through cultural tourism, e.g.: develop an
Indigenous Cultural Tourist Centre
• 8. Attract, facilitate and maximise the benefits of major City
events and festivals, e.g.: bid for Australian Travel Writers
Association (ASTW) AGM
Strategic Directions + Recommendations
• 9. Engage Youth, e.g.: develop a Youth Media Organisation
• 10. Connect Creative Rural Communities, e.g.: employ a
Rural Community Development Officer who is based rurally
who works in collaboration with the other CDOs and in
partnership with regional stakeholders
• SO WHAT DO WE MAKE OF ALL THIS???
Critical Reflections
1. Feels very much like a wish list;
2. Actual outcomes still to be assessed;
3. Significant transaction costs AND opportunity costs
involved;
4. ‘Dialectic of community engagement’ and ‘tyranny
of community’ still represent forceful arguments;
5. ‘Place-shaping’ in this sense is not an egalitarian
model of reform
Generally:
• Bell and Hindmoor (2008, 139):
– ‘best case’ scenario for CE, where ‘such consultation becomes an
on-going dialogue involving mutual learning and accommodation’, is
precisely that: a best-case scenario.
• Alternatively:
– ‘at its worst, CE is tokenistic and creates a sense of betrayal when
communities believe that their views have been ignored’.
– City of Greater Geraldton’s CE process will, in all probability, fall
between these two extremes.
– Nevertheless, at its most immediate, the process presented here
suggests that community engagement can do much to engendering
regionalism from the local level.