Colorantes empleados en el procesamiento textil

There were two categories of limitations identified in the literature that applied to Victorian local government’s democratic governance role.

The first category focused on the barriers to facilitating engagement with the community that were generally external to Victorian local government’s control. The second category examined the principles and practices of community engagement that were largely influenced by the actions of Victorian local government. There were a number of components in both of these categories.

It was firstly alleged that there was tension between the concepts of democratic governance and community engagement (Brackertz et al 2005). This tension was due to a lack of clarity between the objectives of Victorian local government’s role in terms of community engagement and the relationship of this process to effective local decision making (Bishop and Davis 2002; Brackertz et al 2005; Cuthall and Fien 2005).

It was considered that there was pressure on Victorian local government to embrace more participatory forms of decision making, without sufficient thought being given to the purpose and desired outcomes of community engagement in local processes (Wettenhall and Alexander 2000; Bishop and Davis 2002; Brackertz et al 2005). It was generally concluded that Victorian local government should examine the context and aims of the engagement process prior to embarking on a particular method (Bishop and Davis 2002; Edwards 2002; Brackertz et al 2005). Bishop and Davis (2002) stated that participation models should be shaped to match the specific problems being investigated and that

participation is not a single trend (p.26).

It was stated in the literature that the need to consider the objectives of community engagement processes was also because of resource limitations. Engagement processes required both time and financial resources and the lack of resources of both Victorian local government and the community was considered to be a limitation to effectively achieving good democratic governance (Victorian Council of Social Service 1999; Lowndes, Pratchett and Stoker 2001; Edwards 2002; Office of the Deputy Prime Minister 2002; Curtain 2003; Stoker 2003b).

A further barrier to democratic governance was that regardless of the extent of good governance practices utilized by Victorian local government, true representation could not be achieved in all circumstances (Beetham 1996; Plein, Green and Williams 1998; Lowndes, Pratchett and Stoker 2001; Edwards 2002; Brackertz et al 2005). This was because some sections of the community declined to become involved in engagement processes for a diversity of reasons.

The first reason for the lack of community participation was because of what was termed

consultation overload (Brackertz et al 2005 p.28), which meant that citizens become annoyed at being frequently asked to be involved in consultation exercises (also refer Beilharz 2000; Lowndes, Pratchett and Stoker 2001). This situation was exacerbated by the intensification of lifestyles and pluralization of roles and obligations experienced by some communities (Beilharz 2000; Brackertz et al 2005).

A lack of community involvement in local government engagement processes also reflected limited interest in government issues, a preference to spend time on non- political activities and a lack of time more generally (Jones 1993; Lowndes, Pratchett and Stoker 2001; Office of the Deputy Prime Minister 2002; Stoker 2003b; Brackertz et al 2005).

A further difficulty in achieving true representation was because engagement processes may elicit views from a particular group that was atypical and therefore unrepresentative of the majority (Munro-Clark 1992; Painter 1992; Beetham 1996; Lowndes, Pratchett and Stoker 2001; Brackertz et al 2005). Engagement practices provided avenues of influence for sections of the community who had political knowledge and were well resourced, while excluding other groups who were less influential (Munro-Clark 1992; Painter 1992; Plein, Green and Williams 1998; Frey and Eichenberger 1995, 1999; Department for Victorian Communities 2006b).

A barrier to achieving effective governance practices was because there were also sections of the community who were hard to reach (Brackertz et al 2005 p.25). Typically hard to reach groups included the elderly, youth, indigenous communities, people who spoke languages other than English and people with disabilities (Stoker 2003b; Brackertz et al 2005). Lower socio-economic groups might also not articulate their views because they believed that the political process achieved little for them and was controlled by others (Painter 1992; Plein, Green and Williams 1998; Stoker 2003b).

Wider use of technology was considered to exacerbate the difficulties in engaging some citizens in governance processes. Recently introduced concepts such as e-democracy, e- petitions and ‘have your say’ web based programs were considered to limit the access of certain sections of the community to put forward their views (Salvaris 1997; Curtain 2003; Joseph 2004; Singh and Sahu 2004; Cooper 2005; King 2006). Other authors suggested the messages from the community via electronic communication processes were unreliable and misleading (Putnam 2000; King 2006).

There were a number of limitations to democratic governance in regard to community engagement that resulted from the practices undertaken by Victorian local government.

It was identified that some local government professionals regarded community engagement as a nuisance and a process that delayed decisions (Munro-Clark 1992; Jones 1993; Lowndes, Pratchett and Stoker 2001; Edwards 2002; Curtain 2003). Citizens consequently became disengaged with government and its processes (Jones 1993; Rayner 1997).

Community engagement was also considered to be a potential threat to elected members and to diminish the legitimacy of government. The engagement of the community meant a sharing of power and the loss of control to determine outcomes (Williams 1998; Latham 2000; Wettenhall and Alexander 2000; Edwards 2002, 2003; Curtain 2003; Cuthill and Fien 2005). The concern about the potential loss of power reflected a lack of trust between the community and government more broadly (Cuthill and Fien 2005).

A lack of commitment to community engagement by Victorian local government limited community access to information. This lack of information meant that citizens were not able to fully participate in engagement processes or adequately articulate their views (Victorian Council of Social Service 1999; Cuthill and Fien 2005).

A further disincentive for Victorian local government to undertake engagement programs was that such initiatives could raise unrealistic community expectations, especially where resources were limited (Lowndes, Pratchett and Stoker 2001). Broad engagement with the community could also result in conflict and disagreement between the parties, rather than a consensus based outcome (Plein, Green and Williams 1998; Edwards 2002).

2.3.2.3 How the Community Benefits from Victorian Local Government’s