Las estrategias de lectura en el modelo interactivo

An examination of the literature on Victorian local government identified that there were three categories of limitations to local government effectively implementing its role that crossed a number of specify role areas. The first category related to issues that were external to Victorian local government’s control.

The financing of local government and its challenges and limitations was comprehensively discussed in Chapter 1. It is not intended to cite the literature on this topic again but it is acknowledged that Victorian local government’s financial capacity was a limiting factor in terms of implementing its role.

A related issue to the financial sustainability of Victorian local government was local government’s ongoing capacity to achieve its role in the broader context. This issue was discussed in relation to local government’s expanded responsibilities that had grown to meet the increasing expectations of the community. The Hawker Report (2003) questioned whether:

they (local government) are trying to be all things to all people at a price they cannot pay (House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration 2003bp.10).

The Hawker Report (2003) concluded that the role of local government could not continue to expand without additional funding and resources (House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration 2003b).

The second external factor that inhibited Victorian local government’s achievement of its role was its external and resultant internal image and the lack of community support that resulted as a consequence of that image (Chapman and Wood 1984; Jones 1993; Chapman 1997a; Rayner 1997; Dunstan 1998; Victorian Local Government Good Governance Panel 1998; Hill 1999; Ellison 2000).

Chapman and Wood (1984) stated that:

its (local government’s) own self-image suffered because it saw itself, and was seen by others, not as part of the governing system, but rather as a limited, functional, managerial system (p.14).

Rayner (1997) stated that because local government made decisions in areas that had an immediate impact on personal and neighborhood life, local government was the government we love to hate (p.160).

The negative portrayal of local government by the media contributed to Victorian local government’s poor image (Victorian Local Government Good Governance Panel 1998; Hill 1999). Attempts to gain positive media coverage on good news stories were not taken up by the media (Hill 1999). Hill 1999 stated that:

every opportunity is taken by Mitchell (radio compere) to savage and ridicule local government and turn them into objects of contempt (p.16).

The poor image of Victorian local government that was exacerbated by the media portrayal of local government resulted in a number of community outcomes.

Kiss (2004) stated that the community did not believe in the necessity of local democracy but tolerated it as long as it cost as little as possible and no additional powers were devolved. The community was also generally apathetic towards local government as demonstrated by the lack of response to the local government reforms instituted by the Kennett Government in the 1990s (Kiss 1997, 2004).

It was further stated that there was a degree of community resentment of local government because it was insulated from the dramatic economic changes that the private sector had endured (Jones 1993). Local government could increase its rates to a predominantly captive audience (Jones 1993).

Another impact of Victorian local government’s poor image was the lack of general debate about the role and status of local government. In discussing this issue Dollery and Marshall (2003) maintained that:

one of the most problematic issues facing local government today (is) the low profile of the sector in the public consciousness. Unlike its state and federal counterparts there is very little informed dialogue about the functions, structures and purposes of Australian local government (p.248).

Bowman (1983); Chapman and Wood (1984); and Dollery and Wallis (2001) supported this view.

Victorian local government also had to counteract the blame that was sometimes directed at it due to policies that were imposed by other levels of governments (Jones 1993). This situation resulted in Victorian local government generally becoming defensive (Victorian Local Government Good Governance Panel 1998). Local government councillors and officers were generally considered to have a lower capacity compared to their federal and state counterparts (Chapman 1997a).

The third external barrier to Victorian local government’s implementation of its role was the capacity to develop policy. This was limited due to the principle of ultra vires, which

meant that local government could not make policy that conflicted with state or federal government policy. This resulted in both a complex legal environment for local government and a constrained framework in which policies could be developed (Bowman 1983; Beetham 1996; Bailey 1999). Bowman (1983) stated that as a consequence of the

ultra vires principle it was extraordinarily difficult to engage in rational policy processes at the local level (p.180).

The second category of barriers to the effective implementation of Victorian local government’s role was its partnership and relationship with other levels of government. These issues as they specifically related to local government’s democratic, community building and services roles have been previously identified. It was considered that in general terms local government’s lack of achievement of effective partnerships was due to the high degree of mutual suspicion between the three levels of government (Saunders 1996; Chapman 1997; Dollery and Marshall 2003).

It was further considered that a significant shift of power and recognition needed to be directed to local government by state and federal governments if effective partnerships were to be achieved (Chapman 1997a; Geddes 2005). This was especially relevant for decision making and resource allocation (Wiseman 2006). Chapman (1997b) maintained that neither of the other spheres (of government) is willing to share its power very readily (p.43).

A related barrier to effective partnerships between local government and other levels of government was the difficulty in determining the structural arrangements for partnerships, due to the large number of local governments (Chapman 1997b; Dollery and Marshall 2003; Dollery 2005). It was stated that the nature of intergovernmental relations was complex (Chapman 1997b).

The lack of representation at the federal level was considered to be a further limitation for local government as evidenced by the fact there was one seat on the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) for all local governments throughout Australia (Galligan 1996).

The third category of barriers to Victorian local government’s effective implementation of its role related to a number of internal issues.

Smith (1998) maintained that while the localness of local government had underpinned its existence it had become a limitation. This limitation was because local government had become too inwardly focused and maintained the status quo, even though external developments paved the way for change (Smith 1998). Bowman (1983) and Jones (1993) supported this view.

A further limitation was the difficulty for elected members to balance the needs of all the community when developing policy. This was particularly difficult if that community was socially, culturally or ethnically diverse (Marshall 2003). It was stated that local government councillors could be confronted with a policy environment that was complex and volatile, leading to what was described as a policy milieu (Marshall 2003 p.145).

2.5 General Proposals for Enhancing Victorian Local