Legislating community engagement at the Australian local government level

Abstract

Community engagement has assumed a more salient role in the operations of Australia’s local governments. A vast number of legislative instruments and reporting requirements are imposed upon local governments by the states and the Northern Territory across Australia’s seven local government jurisdictions. Consequently, a set of identifiable practices is solidifying as a core element of local government practice and state–local relations. However, while practices have recently proliferated, it is easy to forget that they are relatively new. This article examines the legislative frameworks of Australian local government systems by chronologically mapping the development of legislation and other reporting requirements. It is argued that community engagement now occupies a central place in local government, and that the jurisdictions use four different types of approaches, often simultaneously, which can fruitfully be described as ‘prescriptive’, ‘aspirational’, ‘empowering’ and ‘hedging’. The discussion draws comparative observations and identifies key issues and challenges for the future of community engagement.
 KeywordsCommunity engagement; Australia; local government; public participation; legislation

moderating and mediating role of local government in the community engagement strategy of a renewable energy company in South Africa

“…Local government engagement efforts with their communities are a function of regional and national government policy and legislation (Christensen 2018). Other reasons for such engagement include the quest for better and more democratic outcomes from these participatory practices and the need to improve legitimacy in an environment of community activism and increasing distrust of government.…”

Managing divided loyalties in the emerging profession of community engagement

“…When the bureaucracy and the decision-makers aren't aligned. While the decision to undertake community engagement processes in public institutions is often dictated by legislation (see, for example, Christensen, 2018b), in many instances it was considered good practice. Regardless of whether the process is mandated or not, participants in this study observed that there could be differences of opinion between the public servants who design and deliver or contract the engagement process, and the elected representatives in how the engagement should be undertaken.…”

Legislating deliberative engagement: Is local government in Victoria willing and able?

“…That said, deliberative practice has clearly gained interest in Australia. For instance, a survey of 352 councils across four Australian jurisdictions found that one third of councils intended to use participatory budgeting, deliberative group methods, and co‐design in the next 12 months (Christensen, 2018). Although there is interest in the practice, questions remain regarding what how the practice is to be developed and embedded in government institutions (see, e.g.…”