In Australian practice the use of the term community governance has some general level of understanding. The book Community and Local Governance in Australia by Smyth et al (2005) adds importantly to the Australian discourse on the topic with many contributors. In 2015, the South Australian Government supported an event led by the Institute of Public Administration titled
“Making community governance work”. The event included a public discussion, a presentation on
39 research in Portland, Oregon by Paul Leister (Lawson 2015) and the launch of a report by the Local Excellence Expert Panel recommending the establishment of Regional Councils and community governance. This meeting aimed to reconceptualise the meaning and application of community governance in Australia towards it “reflecting the increasing predisposition within communities to play a greater role in how decisions are made which affect ‘their place’ and the options open to them for how they live, work and play” (Lawson 2015, 47).
Another significant report on the Evolution of Community Governance (2012) for the Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government (McKinlay et al 2011) included a literature review of governance, particularly local government and community governance, and noted that the term governance in Australia “commonly refers to accountability for organisational decision-making and behaviour” (McKinlay et al 2011, 9).
The McKinlay et al (2011) definition of community governance highlights collective processes and describes a “collaborative approach to determining a community's preferred futures and developing and implementing the means of realising them” (McKinlay et al 2011, 5). The key to defining
community governance “is not whether clear and specific boundaries can be set around it, but whether it has utility in the sense of improving understanding of how decisions which affect a community’s future are best taken and implemented” (McKinlay et al 2011, 5).
A key factor that community governance and environmental planning have in common is complexity and a diversity of approaches (McKinlay et al 2011, 35):
All actors in community governance are confronted with a mix of natural complexity which is inherent to the issue involved, and imposed complexity which is the result of a history of often uncoordinated regulatory intervention.
McKinlay et al (2011) identify the key theories underpinning community governance from a range of literature and projects of local councils. Concepts of subsidiarity, new localism, governance of place, community engagement, civic leadership and metropolitan governance are discussed. The outcomes of a review of various successful community governance examples across Australia include a broad range of community governance models. McKinlay et al (2011) name the “community bank” concept as the most significant in its impact and sustainability, and also conclude that some issues remain unresolved. They highlight the importance of the community plan and the level of effort to produce one, questioning the cost versus the benefit. They note the lack of legitimisation of the concept of the community plan at all, and the lack of acknowledgement by the various state governments in the
40 role of local governments in local community planning. However, despite these challenges, McKinlay et al (2011, 11) find important potential for community governance in Australia and outline eleven findings for local government for community governance to continue to develop:
1. Local governments’ communities have a growing expectation that they will be involved in decisions which affect them.
2. Size and geography both matter.
3. A community governance approach changes the roles of elected members.
4. It is critical that all parties are well informed about the community governance approach.
5. A community governance approach highlights the importance of ensuring that the council can hear all the voices within the community and not just the traditional ‘squeaky wheels’ or other loud voices.
6. In all councils, it is the councillors who have ultimate responsibility for the council’s policy on community engagement but there is a need to tailor actual delivery to the circumstances of the individual council, other pressures on elected members, and the council’s culture and structure.
7. Most councils involved in the study have recognised in different ways the need for community capability building initiatives as part of developing community governance.
8. Place shaping and place-based management requires a genuinely effective and
comprehensive approach to community governance, and there is likely to be a growing trend for councils to look at reorganising their structures to reflect this.
9. There is likely to be tension between state government planning and a community governance approach. The former is a top-down approach to imposing decisions on individual communities and the latter a bottom-up approach expressing the community’s preferences.
10. Councils adopting a community governance approach recognise the need for three separate roles: around decision-making and implementation, facilitation, and advocacy.
11. The development of community governance should remain free from statutory direction.
Finally, McKinlay et al (2011) acknowledged a light literature on community governance in Australia and a need for further understanding in certain areas, especially multijurisdictional green
infrastructure. They identified areas for further research and understanding of the use of community governance such as “alliances that have been set up to deal with cross-cutting issues such as the management of river catchments or the economic challenges facing a locality.” They suggest that the features of community governance include effective community engagement, partnerships and
41 networks, councils offering strategic leadership and a “sense of place as a unifying and motivating concept for all stakeholders who are involved” (McKinlay et al 2011, 12).