Obligaciones del contratista:

As outlined in the previous section, Tasmanian local government acknowledges the need to change, but also acknowledges its constrained ability to bring about this change. The central theme of this section explores the impact of the pressure for reform.

As canvassed in Chapter two, it is claimed that the current model of local government is based on multi-functional territoriality and political systems (McKinlay, 2010). In this regard, Bell (2002) proposes that the formal-legal and administrative arrangements of government explain political or governance behaviour within an institutional setting, and results demonstrate that this is reflected in the governance behaviour of local government in Tasmania.

Schmidt (2008) and Schmidt (2011) highlight that local government tends to be static and equilibrium focused. The author has observed examples of this institutionalism where local government in Tasmania has generated its own traditional discursive dimension, to administer local government bureaucracy under legislative jurisdictions. This, as March and Olsen (2005) and Albescue (2011) identify, is where each institution operates in its own right by virtue of institutional rules and practices which cannot be changed arbitrarily, but are connected as members of the same institution. However, the principles of this historical and bureaucratic institutionalism are challenged by McQueen (2013) who argues that the preservation and sustaining of traditions may undermine the relevance of what organisations do or are trying to do.

Furthermore, while Dollery et al. (2003) emphasise that there is an expectation for elected representatives to facilitate effective governance, elected representative responses clearly indicate a belief that they do their job well. However, a contrary opinion was expressed by some respondents (elected representatives and council officers) who identified that even though councillors do a good job, there is a need for councils to better understand current and future community needs so as to more effectively represent and reflect community values. A similar view was presented by one council officer who argued that elected representatives are possibly not well-enough informed to be making the decisions that they make.

A persistent issue identified by all respondents and supported by the literature is that citizens expect local government to advocate on their behalf to fill any service delivery gaps that have emerged through reconfiguration at other levels of government (Brown and Keast, 2003, Aulich, 2009). Furthermore as one elected representative pointed out, councils are going to have to learn to deal with this new reality, to do things more efficiently and be more productive. This emerging trend for greater social responsibility for local government to mitigate social disadvantage gaps in local communities has raised concern for case study councils. In this regard, respondents have raised serious questions about financial implications and risk management for councils. Several elected representatives expressed the view that this trend is pressured devolution of responsibility from other levels of government, imposing an added financial burden on councils to be balanced against existing financial resources (Buser, 2013, Campbell 2016).

From another perspective, the author perceives that this expectation may not be well-understood by case study councils or may be considered as a role outside the current governance domain of local government. The author also considers that this therefore may influence extent of understanding by local government of real and ever-changing socio-demographics and local social needs. And while all respondents acknowledge a need to consider emerging socio-economic needs, it is evident that this lack of understanding by local government may adversely influence social intervention approaches and mechanisms by councils.

However, as de Silva (2011) pointed out this has also pressured local authorities to strategically consider ways to build community and economic development within local communities to mitigate social disadvantage gaps. What is more, some elected representatives have begun to question their representative roles together with what their councils do, how they do it and why they do it. Furthermore, as one elected representative identified, the role of elected representatives is becoming less about where councillors see the future going, as councils finding out where communities want to be in the future. Keohane (2011) supports this view, emphasising that while councils have a vital civic leadership role to play in leading change and advocating for citizens for communities, they must adjust to a newer localism agenda that places people as partners in governance design and delivery.

One of the strengths of local government identified by respondents is that it is the tier of government closest to the people, therefore respondents perceive local government understands local community needs best. However, the dilemma for local government as identified by elected

representatives is incorporating a localism agenda within judicially defined boundaries. Furthermore, as one case study council responded stated, it is only councils that see lines on maps, not the people. What is more, it is evident that local government in Tasmania, its responsibilities and capacity to shape local development within judicially defined boundaries has been on the radar of the State government of Tasmania for quite some time, particularly in the context of reform and sustainability (Access Economics, 2007, Tasmanian Government, 2010).

Lyons (2007) raised concerns regarding sustainability of local government UK in its current form, primarily because of central government control of local government, and local government’s dependence upon central government for support funding/revenue. This is a challenge for local government, and it is apparent from the literature that the most significant trend challenging local government globally and locally is the push for reform, i.e. reform of governance, structure and administration (Wollmann, 2000, Lyons, 2007, Andrews et al., 2008, Paulais, 2009, Megele, 2012, Wollmann, 2012, Grant and Dollery, 2010, Martin, 2011, Buser, 2013).

Elected representatives acknowledge that reform of local government relates to redefining the role of local government (including that of elected representatives) and modernising its functions, processes and community engagement mechanisms. In line with this, case study councils acknowledge political intervention by the Tasmanian State government to reshape and broaden its role through reform. Civic academics propose that reform is a mechanism for local government to develop a citizen-focused participatory process that enables community problem- solving and reverses the sense of disconnectedness commonly voiced by individual citizens (Pritchard and McManus, 2000, Pillora and McKinlay, 2011, Herriman and Pillora, 2011, Huggins, 2012).

Respondents clearly identify that councils have already undertaken some measure of reform, in particular place-shaping. Lyons (2007) explains place-shaping as the adoption of a leadership style that engages local partners through collaboration to solve local issues, locally. Results present good evidence that some councils have sought through civic leadership and collaboration to be better informed about local socio-economic needs. For example one case study council demonstrated a place-shaping approach by establishing a local economic renewal group in collaboration with local community stakeholders. This initiative has encouraged community participation and influenced community development strategies and outcomes for this

community and council. What is more, this example fits with the trend for citizen expectations to shape their own future (Jones et al., 2011, Brackertz, 2013).

The over-arching theme of this place-shaping approach, demonstrates an emerging trend for shared governance which reflects knowledge partnering to build a local knowledge base that ‘underpins people’s actions and decision-making’ (McKinlay et al., 2011: 18). However, elected representatives are very clear about their degree of discomfort in adopting this new governance model of sharing decision-making with community. It is evident that this new governance model challenges elected representatives’ perceptions of the governance role of local government. Dollery and Grant (2010) propose this new governance role would realign council governance focus equitably between community and local government as a place-shaping mechanism. This place-shaping approach as explained by Palich and Edmonds (2003) again places emphasis on place for local government. And it is in this context that Local Government Association of Tasmania and Government (2014) and Lyons (2007) strongly suggest that local government must embrace the place-shaping role to build a sense of place by strengthening engagement with community. However, elected representatives and council officers consider that place-shaping and a sense of place are mechanisms for community development, rather than mechanisms for reform.

On the other hand, Dollery and Grant (2010: 1) question whether the place-shaping approach to create a sense of place as a reform model has resolved problems faced by local government. Rather they believe it has heightened cost shifting, social exclusion and possibly diminished local government accountability. Similarly, Campbell (2016) relates cost-shifting or decentralisation as an evolving relationship between higher levels of government and local government. What is more, this has resulted in a challenging situation for local government which emphasises central governments’ enthusiasm for top down or ‘vertical rather than horizontal decentralisation’ (Campbell, 206: 5-7).

Two key points emerge from the discussion around reform. Firstly, it is evident that some councils are not clear on what reform of local government actually means. And this has created tensions around what and how other levels of government expect local government to reform (Evans et al., 2012, Dollery, 2011, Gooding, 2013, Dollery et al., 2003). And while results reflect that Case study councils acknowledge the need for change, it is evident from the results that there is limited movement by case study councils towards this reform agenda.

Secondly, results illustrate that reform is not a simplistic process and elected representatives raised concerns about the drivers for reform by the State government of Tasmania. What is more, concern was expressed about the lack of guidance in this reform process. It is significant to note that case study councils perceive a lack of council innovative capacity to cope with this push for reform, and in this context, the situation is seen to be more complex and the process more demanding on their skills and resources. Furthermore, as discussed by Evans et al. (2012) this is a top-down driven process for local governments by State governments, which emphasises the situation for councils not being able or encouraged to establish their own reform agenda.

Again in this context, results were examined to determine whether any suggested reform approaches such as social policy development has been applied by case study councils. It was discovered that one council only made reference to future social planning in its Community Plan. It is also evident in these results that no other case study councils have developed formal policies that incorporate social clauses for future social planning. Moreover, as one responded stated:

but … talking about social inclusion and all of that, it becomes as with all of those things, motherhood statements ….

Similarly, another elected representative emphasised the importance of not developing strategic plans by looking backwards and relating to how things should have been, but by looking at where things are meant to go. And in this context, Dollery (2011) proposes that this approach would require bottom-up internal reform within councils, and that this would possibly align this process to the proposed reform agenda for local government.

The imperative for local government reform as identified by Local Government Association of Tasmania (2006) and Munro et al. (2011) is to meet community expectations that reflected economies of scale for municipal areas. This is to increase local government capacity and reduce administration and compliance costs, and suggested to be achieved through council amalgamations. This imperative has placed the role of local government under extreme pressure to reform structurally, financially and in particular how it engages with community. One elected representative referred to amalgamations of councils as a top-down mechanism imposed by the Tasmanian State government. On the other hand, other respondents (elected representatives and council officers) argue that while there is a definite need for greater efficiencies in local government, they also suggest that the strength of local government in Tasmania is its local status that connects to local communities by providing stewardship and advocacy on the ground, and not necessarily through amalgamations.

This subsection provides insight into a range of challenges and trends facing local government, which have been described as strongly influencing the future role of local government in Tasmania. However, results demonstrate tensions between local government and other levels of government regarding the imposed reform agenda. A localism approach alludes to a mechanism for understanding local community needs to support the community development role of local government. However, it is clear there is a reluctance by some case study councils to embrace this approach which encourages greater collaboration with other local community development actors, for example social enterprises.