THE CHALLENGES OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT IN RURAL-REMOTE AND INDIGENOUS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN AUSTRALIA

By

Melissa Gibbs

Deputy Director of the Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government (ACELG),

at the University of Technology, Sydney (UTS) 

About the Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government (ACELG)

The Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government (ACELG, or the Centre) is a consortium of universities and professional associations established in 2009 with funding support from the Australian Government.The Centre’s mandate is to enhance professionalism and skills in Australian local government, showcase innovation and best practice, and facilitate a better-informed policy debate.The Centre is a collaboration of five universities and local government professional associations, each dedicated to the advancement of Australian local government.

The consortium is led by the University of Technology, Sydney (UTS), and also includes the University of Canberra (UC); Australian local government’s two largest professional associations – Local Government Managers Australia (LGMA) and the Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia (IPWEA); and the Australia and New Zealand School of Government (ANZSOG), which offers Australia’s premier public sector executive leadership program.

In addition, there are currently two active program partners to provide program support in specialist areas and extend the Centre’s national reach: Charles Darwin University (CDU) and Edith Cowan University (ECU).

 

About the Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government (ACELG)

The Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government (ACELG, or the Centre) is a consortium of universities and professional associations established in 2009 with funding support from the Australian Government.The Centre’s mandate is to enhance professionalism and skills in Australian local government, showcase innovation and best practice, and facilitate a better-informed policy debate.The Centre is a collaboration of five universities and local government professional associations, each dedicated to the advancement of Australian local government.

The consortium is led by the University of Technology, Sydney (UTS), and also includes the University of Canberra (UC); Australian local government’s two largest professional associations – Local Government Managers Australia (LGMA) and the Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia (IPWEA); and the Australia and New Zealand School of Government (ANZSOG), which offers Australia’s premier public sector executive leadership program.

In addition, there are currently two active program partners to provide program support in specialist areas and extend the Centre’s national reach: Charles Darwin University (CDU) and Edith Cowan University (ECU).

ACELG operations

ACELG operates across six program areas, namely:

§  Research and policy foresight

§  Innovation and best practice

§  Governance and strategic leadership

§  Organisation capacity building

§  Rural-remote and Indigenous local government

§  Workforce development.

These programs reflect the current national priorities and areas of potential advancement within Australian local government (ACELG, 2013, p. 9).Through its rural-remote and Indigenous local government program, the Centre is giving special attention to the capacity building needs of small rural-remote and Indigenous local governments.This paper outlines some of the activities undertaken by ACELG under this program area.

Consultation and networks

The Centre maintains extensive ongoing involvement with the local government sector and with other key stakeholders in order to ensure its programs are soundly based and reflect agreed issues and priorities.This is an important operating principle for the Centre as it seeks to deliver enduring improvements in local government’s capacity and performance and deliver its vision of “World-class local government to meet the emerging challenges of 21st Century Australia” (ACELG, 2013, p. 7).

Local government in Australia

It is important to place the challenges facing local government in remote Australia in the context of the broader national local government system.

Australia is a federation of six states and two territories.Constitutional responsibility for local government rests with the states and territories, which provide the legislative framework and jurisdictional responsibility for local government operations.In Australia there are around 566 local governments (DRALGAS, 2012, p. 2.), ranging from large, densely populated metropolitan cities to small remote rural shires with sparse populations spread over large areas.The number of local governments in Australia has declined significantly over time due in most part to amalgamations, as evincedin Table 1.

Table 1.

Number of local governments in Australia 1910-2009.

Jurisdiction	1910	1991	2001	2008	2009
New South Wales (NSW)	324	176	172	152	152
Victoria (Vic)	206	210	79	79	79
Queensland (Qld)	164	134	125	73	73
Western Australia (WA)	147	138	142	140	139
South Australia (SA)	175	122	68	68	68
Tasmania (Tas)	51	46	29	29	29
Northern Territory (NT)	0	0	7	61	16
Total	1,067	826	622	602	556

Source: DRALGAS, 2012, p. 49.

Local government functions

While there are differences between the operating arrangements across the states and territories, the main roles of local government are advocacy, governance, planning, community development, service delivery, asset management and regulation (DRALGAS, 2012, p. 5).Examples of local government services and functions include:

§  Building inspection, licensing, certification and enforcement

§  Commercial services, including parking, aerodromes, cemeteries, quarries, abattoirs, sale-years, and markets

§  Community services, including child care, aged care and accommodation, refuge facilities, counselling and welfare

§  Cultural services, including libraries, art galleries and museums

§  Engineering, including public works design, construction and maintenance of roads, bridges, footpaths, drainage, cleaning, and waste collection and management

§  Health, including water and food sampling and testing, immunisation, public toilet facilities, noise control, and animal control

§  Land use planning and development control

§  Recreation, including swimming pools, sports and recreation centres, public halls, and camping grounds

§  Water and sewerage in some jurisdictions (DRALGAS, 2012, p. 5).

Rural-remote and Indigenous local government in Australia

ACELG has identified a cohort of 105 local governments in Australia for targeted assistance under its rural-remote and Indigenous local government program.ACELG’s Project Plan characterises this category of local governments thus:

Small rural-remote and Indigenous councils[1] operate in a different context to urban and provincial councils.They are typically resource-poor and highly dependent on grants.They experience severe difficulties in attracting and retaining staff.Often the key issue is not so much one of improvement, as of establishing and maintaining basic capacity in the first instance.

At the same time, their communities look to councils to ensure that adequate health services (particularly primary health care), education (including tertiary education), transport, and arts, cultural and recreational facilities are provided.They expect local government not only to be a competent service provider, but also to be an advocate, facilitator and partner in service delivery by Commonwealth and State/Territory governments (ACELG, 2013, p. 21).

            ACELG’s role in assisting rural-remote and Indigenous local governments is directed towards improving the capacity of local governments to provide strong leadershipand good local governance for their communities.ACELG’s priorities are not aimed at trying to solve the structural and systemic problems facing remote communities and Indigenous populations.This is made clear in the Centre’s Project Plan:

The rural-remote and Indigenous program will initially seek to identify those areas in which the Centre can most usefully assist these councils, and the best means of providing assistance. An important area for research and policy development, building on recent studies into the financial sustainability of councils, will be to consider what other policy interventions by federal and state governments are needed to complement any assistance the Centre may be able to provide.

The program will involve scoping studies and developing case examples drawn from both previous and contemporary studies, and the sharing of information and ‘lessons learned’(ACELG, 2010, p. 21).

Some facts and figures

            Of the 556 local governments in Australia, 105 (around 18%) have been categorised by ACELG as rural-remote and Indigenous.These 105 local governments cover almost two-thirds (65%) of Australia’s land mass (see Table 2), yet represent only 1.67% of the population (Table 3).

Figure 1. The geographical coverage of rural-remote and Indigenous local government areas in Australia. Rural-remote and Indigenous local government areas are marked in orange, unincorporated areas are marked in purple, and non rural-remote and Indigenous local government areas are unmarked. Picture adapted from ‘Australian local government areas’, Wikimedia Commons.

Table 2.

Size of rural-remote and Indigenous local governments in each Australian state and the Northern Territory.

Jurisdiction	Total Size(ha)	Rural-remote and Indigenous local government coverage (ha)	%
NSW	80,080,873.7	21,831,550.0	27.26
Vic	22,749,552.3	0.0	0.00
Qld	172,582,593.1	105,676,733.2	61.23
WA	252,641,786.0	214,327,807.0	84.83
SA	98,417,965.8	27,046,477.7	27.48
Tas	6,801,819.7	0.0	0.00
NT	135,316,390.3	131,705,356.0	97.33
Total (Australia)	768,848,540.5	500,587,928.9	65.11

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, National Regional Profile, Environment, LGA, 2007-2011.

Table 3.

Rural-remote and Indigenous local governments – populations in each Australian state and the Northern Territory.

Jurisdiction	Population	Rural-remote and Indigenous local government population	%
NSW	7,290,345	29,936	0.41
Vic	5,623,492	0	0.00
Qld	4,560,059	91,826	2.01
WA	2,430,252	156,573	6.44
SA	1,654,778	44,130	2.67
Tas	512,019	0	0.00
NT	234,836	56,186	23.93
Total (Australia)	22,683,573	378,651	1.67

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 3218.0 Population Estimates by Local Government Area, 2011 to 2012 (estimates are at 30 June 2012).

ACELG’s rural-remote and Indigenous local government program

Shortly after ACELG’s establishment in 2009, it commissioned three scoping studies to identify the key challenges facing rural-remote and Indigenous local government in Australia.These scoping studies went on to inform the development of a national capacity building strategy for rural-remote and Indigenous local government.The strategy includes a range of initiatives to assist these councils in the provision of good governance for their communities.The three scoping studies covered three jurisdictions: Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland’s Indigenous local governments.[2]These jurisdictions contained the greatest number of local authorities in the identified cohort of rural-remote and Indigenous local governments.

The findings of these scoping studies were considered at a national roundtable convened in the nation’s capital, Canberra.Roundtable participants included representatives of federal, state, territory and local governments, local government representative associations, professional institutes, and academics. From the scoping studies and roundtable deliberations, ACELG identified the following themes and challenges facing remote and Indigenous local governments:

Financial sustainability

Rural-remote and Indigenous local governments face severe financial sustainability challenges, with most being dependent on grants from state/territory and federal governments to provide core services.For example, the remote shires located in the Northern Territory[3] raise only around 10% of their revenue from rates and annual charges, well below the national benchmark of 40% outlined in the PricewaterhouseCoopers 2006 National Financial Sustainability Study of Local Government (Deloitte, 2012, p. 21).That report also notes:

The Councils [the remote shires of the Northern Territory] are unable to derive a level of own source revenue. The limited number of rateable properties within the Council areas combined with the application of legislated conditional rating has resulted in an inequitable application of rates and user fees making the Councils overly reliant on grant funding (Deloitte, 2012, p. 11).

Expectations and role

Exacerbating these inherent financial challenges is the fact that rural-remote and Indigenous local government is under immense pressure to provide a wider range of services to its constituents.In its review of local government revenue raising capacity, the Productivity Commission[4] noted:

…rural and remote local governments appear to provide a broader range of services than urban local governments as they fill service gaps that would be undertaken in other spheres of government or the private sector in urban areas (Australian Government Productivity Commission, 2008, p. 49).

Thus, rural-remote and Indigenous local governments are often seen as a ‘provider of last resort’ in the communities they serve, as they are left to fill the gap when services are not provided by others.This is exacerbated by the progressive retreat of government agencies, and oftenresults in councils being expected to provide non-core services such as health, education, banking and television transmission services at great expense (Morris, 2011, p. 8).

This was backed up by the Queensland Local Government Reform Commission in its 2007 report.It noted in relation to remote councils located in the state’s far west that:

Many far western councils are required to fill the gap in delivering human and other services normally provided by the private sector, but which are no longer available due to them being uneconomic (Local Government Reform Commission, 2007, p. 6).

            A similar story applies to Queensland’s Indigenous councils. They noted in a combined submission to a 2010 Parliamentary Inquiry that:

            Put simply, the services required (or expected) to be provided by our indigenous Councils is not matched by existing funding sources. With limited capacity to raise traditional local government rate revenue in our communities, remote Indigenous local governments are facing significant long-term financial challenges (Combined Indigenous Councils, p. 3).

Remoteness

This cohort of local governments face unique challenges due their remote location, size, dispersion of population and scope of services provided (ACELG, 2010).Other problems associated with remoteness include a lack of access to communications infrastructure, a static population with large numbers of itinerant individuals who use local government facilities, and fly-in fly-out or drive-in drive-out mining workforcesthat place additional pressure onlocal services;[5]long distances from major population centres, with external organisations often not willing to work with remote councils; and expanding service requirements and the attendant difficulties of attracting and retaining skilled staff to provide new services and functions (Transport and Local Government Committee, 2012, pp. 6-7).

Legislative provisions relating to service delivery to remote and Indigenous communities

            The Bilateral Agreements for Indigenous Affairs between the federal government and state/territory governments seek to ‘mainstream’ the delivery of essential services to remote Indigenous communities through a transfer of responsibility to local government.However, questions are often asked about the appropriateness of local government as the preferred means of delivering these services, as remote Indigenous councils already provide a much wider range of services than their mainstream counterparts (Morris, 2011, p. 9).

Compliance costs

            As rural-remote and Indigenous local governments typically derive a high proportion of revenue from tied grants, grant administration forms a large part of their functions (Morris, 2011, p. 14).Onerous and inconsistent reporting requirements imposed by funding providers havecaused inefficiencies, additional costs and administrative burdens, reducing the capacity to deliver core services (Deloitte, 2012, p. 12).The councils also face complex and rigid statutory and administrative compliance under the legislative frameworks of each jurisdiction, which are often viewed as excessive due to the fact that the prevailing legislation is developed as a ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution without recognising the diversity of size, capacity, resources, skills and other circumstances of each local government unit.

Governance and community development challenges

            Quality governance is required to deliver strong local governments, and ACELG’s scoping studies identified a number of impediments to the provision of good governance in rural-remote and Indigenous local government. These include the limited pool of candidates in small communities to run for civic office; the absence of strong strategic leadership; poor governance policies, systems and practices; inability to access governance skills and capabilities; the generally low level of Indigenous community participation and engagement; and poor understanding of community engagement methodologies, particularly for hard to reach communities (Morris, 2011, p. 15).

Workforce development

            Australian workplaces are in a ‘war for talent’ (ACELG & LGMA, 2013, p. 41), and local government is not immune as it faces skills shortages and competition from other sectors able to offer higher paying jobs and better career development prospects, such as the lucrative regional mining sector.Rural-remote and Indigenous local governments face even greater challenges as they often have a limited pool of appropriately skilled labour from which to draw in the first place.At the same time, some small-remote and Indigenous councils struggle to tap existing local Indigenous labour sourcesdue to their limited capacity to develop workforce strategies (Morris, 2011, p. 19).

Organisation capacity, particularly in relation to financial and asset management

            Most Australian states and the Northern Territory now require local government to develop long term financial and asset management plans, but many rural-remote and Indigenous local governments have difficulty buildingstaff capacity and to develop robust plans (Morris, 2011, p. 11).

Senior management capacity and support

Senior managers play a vital role in the provision of good financial and administrative management and quality governance in rural-remote and Indigenous local government(Morris, 2011, p. 17).Due to the difficulty of recruiting and retaining senior executives, however, it is often left to the CEO to provide strategic direction to both the council organisation and the community with little support, thereby adding to the workload and increasing the possibility of burnout. Not only do CEOs in remote locations need the same high-level professional and technical skills as their counterparts in urban and larger regional centres, but they must also do the heavy lifting in community governance; leadership; and when working with Indigenous communities, bridging cultural, education and language divides. Add to this the importance of local government leadership in remote locations – due in part to local government’s default position as the service provider of last resort – and it becomes clear how essential it is for local government in those parts of Australia to attract and retain a CEO with the right set of professional and inter-personal skills to make a difference.

To gain a greater appreciation of the specific challenges facing CEOs in rural-remote and Indigenous local government and their capacity needs, ACELG undertook a survey of CEOs in the Northern Territory, Queensland and Western Australia.There are a number of recurring themes expressed throughout the survey, particularly around the importance of training and professional development, and staff attraction and retention (Gibbs, 2012, p. 2).The most common challenges fell into five key categories, and these are outlined in Table 4.

Table 4.

Key challenges facing CEOs in rural-remote and Indigenous local government.

Staffing	Staff recruitment and retention; lack of leadership and management skills; organisational skills shortages; lack of staff accommodation
Community issues	Managing relationships and community engagement; impact of remoteness; managing community expectations
Financial sustainability	Financial constraints; inability to manage assets and infrastructure; balancing service needs with available resources
Organisational	Increasing governance and compliance requirements; excessive service delivery requirements; strategic planning; lack of recognition by other spheres of government about service delivery challenges
Other	Flood mitigation; managing state and federal government relations; the challenges of amalgamations.

In addition to these workplace and organisational issues, CEOs in rural-remote and Indigenous local government face a series of personal challenges working and living in remote locations.These include the additional costs associated with living in remote Australia; distance from family; dislocation, and the challenges of accessing major centres, particularly during and after extreme weather events; the challenges of living and working in the area with limited opportunities for respite; a lack of community facilities and services; and limited access to peer and professional support.

In order to respond to these concerns, ACELG is working with CEOs, state and territory governments, and representative associations to address the challenges of attracting and retaining senior management staff in rural-remote and Indigenous local government.

Regional collaboration and resource sharing

            Many of the traditional means of achieving economies of scale and scope used in local government in Australia (such as amalgamation and consolidation) are not suitable in rural-remote and Indigenous local governments, due mainly to remoteness and the tyranny of distance (ACELG, 2011, p.22).

A Capacity Building Strategy for Rural-Remote and Indigenous Local Government

Having identified and established consensus on the key challenges facing rural-remote and Indigenous local government through the scoping studies and the national roundtable event, ACELG commissioned a national capacity building strategy for rural-remote and Indigenous local government.Accordingly, in March 2011, ACELG released A Capacity Building Strategy for Rural-remote and Indigenous Local Government.The capacity building strategy identifies ten strategic priorities for capacity building, namely:

            1.   Roles and expectations of rural-remote and Indigenous local government

            2.   Local government service delivery to remote and Indigenous communities

            3.   Financial capability and asset management

            4.   Statutory and administrative compliance

            5.   Governance development and community engagement

            6.   Senior management capacity and support

            7.   Workforce development

            8.   Regional collaboration and resource sharing

            9.   Appropriate operational systems

            10. External engagement and relationship building (Morris, 2011, p. 7).

            While the strategy outlines ten priority areas for capacity building, each element is interdependent and often not mutually exclusive.For example, a diverse, skilled and stable local government workforce is a key factor in supporting senior managers to carry out their challenging roles,and attracting and retaining qualified staff impacts on the quality of governance and financial sustainability.

            ACELG is not sufficiently resourced to implement all the actions proposed for each strategic priority on its own.Instead, it has set out a national framework through which jurisdictions, representative associations, and professional bodies can undertake their own capacity building activities.ACELG is playing“facilitation, co-ordination and integration roles that seed ideas for new initiatives, build consensus and support for national capacity building activities, and facilitate partnerships that will bring about enhanced governance and service delivery” (Morris, 2011, p. 7).Having said that, ACELG has set aside some of its program funds to implement a number of the actions proposed in the strategy that lend themselves to leadership at the national level.One primary focus for ACELG in this regard has been strengthening rural-remote and Indigenous community engagement and governance.

Community engagement and governance

            Local government performance is directly linked to the quality of governance, and community engagement is an essential element of good governance.Key success factors for effective localgovernance have been identified by Limerick(2010, p. 11) asa strategic orientation based on a shared vision,a clear separation of powers between elected and appointed officials,respect for the rule of law through the equitable application of rules and policies,an effective administration with a commitment to sound financial management, a stable workforce and sound human resources practices,appropriate community engagement mechanisms,and strategic engagement with other spheres of government and institutions and institutions.

            Not only is community engagement a fundamental foundation to good governance, butcommunities are increasingly seeking to become more involved in local government decision making, and this is influencing the way in which local governments connect to their communities.Local governments across Australia are developing policy responses to the heightened demand for community engagement,sometimes voluntarily and other times in response to state and territory statutory obligations (Herriman, 2011, p. 3).

            The main issues identified in the earlier scoping studies undertaken by ACELG related to low levels of Indigenous participation and engagement in local government decision making processes, a poor understanding of effective community engagement methodologies, and a lack of community engagement skills (Morris, 2012, p. 9).To further explore some of these points, ACELG commissioned a study to provide insight into the community engagement practices and challenges of Australian rural-remote and Indigenous local governments with a view to identifying some practical options to improve the quality of community engagement.The study explored:

§  The nature of community engagement currently undertaken in Australia’s rural-remote and Indigenous local governments

§  The barriers to, and challenges of community engagement

§  Effective strategies and methodologies used

§  Gaps in knowledge and resources

§  Options for improving community engagement.

The study was undertaken through a literature review; interviews with key stakeholders, including representatives of state and territory governments, local government representative associations, and experienced practitioners; an on-line survey of rural-remote and Indigenous local governments; and a set of case studies showcasing effective community engagement practices.

Summary of research findings

Community engagement is in its infancy

            The results of the survey indicatethat community engagement by rural-remote and Indigenous local governments in Australia is in its development phase.Almost two thirds (65%) of the local governments participating in the survey reportedthat they allocate financial resources for community engagement, but only just over half (54%) reportedhaving a formal community engagement policy.A similar proportion (58%) indicated that they have designated staff to conduct community engagement, but less than half (42%) provide formal training for staff to develop their skills.Less than one-third have some type of guide or handbook to assist staff to carry out community engagement activities,along with processes in place to evaluate the effectiveness of community engagement (Morris, 2012, p. 40).

The majority of rural-remote and Indigenous local governments undertake community engagement to some degree

            The survey results show that almost all (98%) local governments use community engagement at some point to inform the community about council plans, services or activities.However, when it comes to higher levels of engagement and empowerment, only about one-fifth (19%) frequently or very frequently empower communities to select solutions or options for a council policy, program or service, and approximately only one-third (35%) frequently or very frequently provide opportunities for the community to actively collaborate in the development of policy or problem solving.Similarly, just over one-third (37%) undertake voluntary community consultation frequently or very frequently (Morris, 2012, p 42). This suggests that while community engagement is occurring regularly in rural-remote and Indigenous local government, it is mainly used to inform and seek feedback rather than to collaborate with,and empower local communities to be masters of their own destiny.

Challenges to community engagement

            The survey included a list of 26 potential challenges to community engagement in rural-remote and Indigenous local government identified through the stakeholder interviews undertaken as part of the study.The top challenges to community engagement as identified by the survey respondents are outlined in Table 5.

Table 5.

Top challenges to community engagement in rural-remote and Indigenous local governments.

Challenge to community engagement	Percentage rated as a major or moderate challenge
Appropriate internal support systems	79%
Community resistance	79%
Financial cost	76%
Adequately skilled staff	76%
Community participation fatigue	71%
Competing council priorities	79%
Community understanding council role	67%
Fear of raising community expectations	57%
Technology/telecommunications	55%
Engaging ‘hard to reach’ groups	55%
Community literacy skills	52%
Distance/remoteness	50%

Source: Adaptedfrom Morris, 2012, p. 44.

            Of particular note is the data relating to participation fatigue and community resistance, with 71% of respondents stating that some community groups feel over consulted, and 79% reporting community resistance as evidenced through disinterest, scepticism or cynicism when being engaged.  Qualitative feedback from respondents suggested engaging Indigenous communities was particularly difficult:

The biggest problem is that there are too many state and federal agencies constantly endeavouring to consult with our communities, seldom with any interagency co-ordination and often at cross purposes.Most often the community sees no outcome from the discussions and so when we turn up there is often a sceptical element who see us as just another bunch of white fellas who want to take up their time and will deliver nothing.

There is a community perception that consultation is a token expectation due to State and Commonwealth government interventions and decrees. [There is a] feeling of disempowerment and that true results of community consultation will not be fed back to agencies as the results would not reflect what the government wants. In essence [it is] a waste of time (Morris, 2012, p. 46).

            This is important, as it adds yet another dimension to the challenges faced by local government in remote Australia – as local government is often the only government institution with a presence in remote communities, it is often left to deal with the consequences of the poor consultation practices of others, which just compounds the already difficult problems itfaces.

Rural-remote and Indigenous local government approaches to community engagement

            Just over half (58%) of respondents provided examples of community engagement techniques that worked well.However, there was a clear message from a number of participants that there is no ‘silver bullet’, and effective community engagement requires the use of a variety of methods to suit different groups and situations.What works well for one group may not work well for others.Relationship development over a period of time to build trust and respect is also critical (Morris, 2012, p. 49).

            Successful engagement techniques identified by survey participants include:

§  Disseminating information through informal face to face meetings, newsletters, local radio and newspaper, notices and posters in popular locations

§  Providing a welcoming environment, along with food and drink at community meetings (sausage sizzles are popular!)

§  Consulting with special interest or small target groups, engaging community leaders and champions, and using properly resourced boards and advisory groups

§  Engaging external experts with an understanding of local circumstances to portray independence and drive the process

§  Using non-traditional approaches and technology, such as graffiti walls anddisposal cameras to engage community members with low literacy levels

§  Engaging Indigenous people throughface to face discussions in informal locations, asking community leaders how people like to be engaged, providing time and space to absorb the information provided, and delivering on outcomes to secure credibility (Morris, 2012, p. 50).

Around 44% of respondents provided examples of community engagement methodologies that had not worked well, including:

§  Inappropriate engagement tools for the circumstances, such as public forums, public attendance at council meetings, paper surveys

§  Tokenism, where the CEO or elected members fail to attend meetings or make genuine efforts to engage, or where there are no outcomes from previous consultations

§  Failing to prepare well for events, assuming the community will pass on information to others, holding large community meetings without an agenda or a good chairperson, or poor timing (e.g. during busy farming season times, clashes with cultural events, etc.)

§  Over-consultation, with multiple agencies endeavouring to consult with no co-ordination or at cross purposes (Morris, 2012, p. 52).

Community engagement and resources

            While survey respondents said that there areample resources available in the form of community engagement guides and handbooks, accessing suitable resources to assist planning and implementing community engagement activities was reported as a challenge.The results suggested there is a need to build awareness of the materials available and where they can be accessed, especially the resources directly relevant to engaging rural-remote and Indigenous communities.In response to this need, ACELG has prepared a database of community engagement resources available to rural-remote and Indigenous local government.[6]

Options for improving rural-remote and Indigenous local government community engagement practices

            Survey respondents identified a number of options for improving engagement practices.The following are listed in the order of popularity:

§  Training staff in community engagement approaches

§  Council education about the role of community engagement

§  Community education about the role of community engagement, its purpose and limitations

§  Material resource guides for integrating community engagement outcomes in council decision making

§  Staff and elected member cultural awareness training

§  New staff induction

§  Specialised regional community engagement forums

§  An interactive on-line portal

§  Community engagement resource sharing

§  Training in building relationships with Indigenous communities

§  A community engagement mentoring program (Morris, 2012, p. 55).

Social media

            The uptake of social media was quite low, with less than one-third (30%) using social media, and less than one-fifth (19%) having developed a social media policy.Notwithstanding the low levels of use, about one-fifth (21%) are now considering use of social media, and more than one-third of respondents (35%) are considering or currently developing a social media policy.Of those using social media, the most common form is Facebook (Morris, 2012, p. 62).

            Respondents identified a number of challenges to using social media:

§  Digital literacy and access to reliable technology and telecommunications

§  Resourcing, with the availability of financial and human resources to develop and resource a social media presence

§  Potential for abuse/misuse by staff and the community

§  Population demographics, with social media being viewed as unsuited to elderly and transient Aboriginal constituents

§  Other channels of communication are perceived to be more effective

§  Legislative requirements, and the need to ensure compliance with record keeping policies

§  Security of social media systems (Morris, 2012, pp. 62-64).

ACELG’s role in supporting rural-remote and Indigenous councils in community engagement

            Survey respondents identified a number of roles for ACELG in supporting rural-remote and Indigenous local governments to improve their community engagement practices.The following themes were identified:

§  Resource development and training, with one respondent linking this back to the challenges of engaging skilled staff more generally

§  Advocacy by promoting, encouraging and supporting the sharing of information, knowledge and experiences

§  Mentoring

§  Promoting Indigenous representation and participation (Morris, 2012, pp. 64-65).

ACELG’s response

            Within its capabilities, ACELG is working with stakeholders to address the challenges identified, reviewing and promoting the use of community engagement materials and training programs suitable for rural-remote and Indigenous local governments, and filling resource and material gaps.

Conclusion

            This paper has outlined the characteristics of rural-remote and Indigenous local governments in Australia, some of the key challenges they face, and steps taken by ACELG in conjunction with other stakeholders to improve their capacity in providingquality governance and leadership to the communities they represent.With the retreat of central governments, local governments in remote Australia are often the only form of government institution with a presence in remote communities, and local governments often assume ‘provider of last resort’ status out of necessity.Not only does this cohort of councils in Australia provide a broader range of services than local governments in other locations, but they play important advocacy, facilitation and partnership roles.Yet many simply lack capacity, skills and resources to assume such roles.Community engagement is a particular challenge, yet it is an important foundation to the provision of good governance, and local communities increasingly want to participate in decision-making.

            ACLEG, along with other local government stakeholders in Australia, is playing a leadership role in building the capacity of local governments in remote locations, principally through the Centre’s national capacity building strategy.ACELG,in accordance with its operating principle, seeks to achieve enduring improvements in capacity and performance.

Acknowledgements

Thanks must firstly go to Dr Robyn Morris of Edith Cowan University, upon whose research this paper is largely based. Thanks also to Dr Michael Limerick, who has provided advice and consultancy support on this subject to ACELG since its establishment in 2009. Thanks also go to members of the national reference group established by ACELG to provide guidance and advice on its rural-remote and Indigenous local government program, and special thanks to the senior staff and elected officials who have contributed to ACELG’s research via interviews, survey responses and other consultations.Finally, thanks to Chris Watterson, ACELG’s program assistant, who assisted in the provision of some of the facts and figures contained in this paper and reviewed earlier versions of this paper.

References

Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government (ACELG)(2010).National Roundtable on Rural-remote and Indigenous Local Government Comunique. Sydney: ACELG.

ACELG (2013).Project Plan 2009-14, 2013 Update. Retrieved July15, 2013, from http://www.acelg.org.au/news-detail.php?id=327.

ACELG,Local Government Managers Australia (LGMA)(2013).Future-proofing Local Government: National Workforce Strategy 2013-2020.South Melbourne: LGMA.

Australian Government Productivity Commission (2008). Assessing Local Government Revenue Capacity.Melbourne: Australian Government Productivity Commission. Retrieved July15, 2013, from http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/study/local-government/docs/finalreport.

Combined Indigenous Councils(2010). Submission to the Public Accounts and Public Works Committee – Remote Council Issues.Brisbane: Queensland Parliament.

Deloitte (2012).Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services – Review of Councils’ Financial Sustainability.Retrieved July15, 2013, from http://www.localgovernment.nt.gov.au/home/local_government_reviews/review_of_councils_financial_sustainability.

Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport (DRALGAS) (2012).2008-2009 Local Government National Report. Canberra: DRALGAS.

Gibbs, M. (2012).Rural-remote and Indigenous Local Government Program: Capacity Building Survey. Sydney: ACELG.Retrieved July15, 2013, fromhttp://www.acelg.org.au/news-detail.php?id=231.

Herriman, J. (2011). Local Government and Community Engagement in Australia(Working Paper No. 5). Sydney: ACELG. Retrieved July15, 2013, from http://www.acelg.org.au/news-detail.php?id=180.

Limerick, M. (2010).Scoping Paper: Indigenous Council Capacity Building in Queensland. Sydney: ACELG. Retrieved July15, 2013, fromhttp://www.acelg.org.au/news-detail.php?id=59.

Local Government Reform Commission(2007).Report of the Local Government Reform Commission, Volume 1.Queensland: State of Queensland (Local Government Reform Commission).Retrieved July15, 2013, http://mountgarnet.org.au/reportTRC.pdf.

Morris, R. (2011).A Capacity Building Strategy for Rural-Remote and Indigenous Local Government.Sydney: ACELG.Retrieved July15, 2013, fromhttp://www.acelg.org.au/news-detail.php?id=140.

Morris, R. (2012).Community Engagement in Rural-remote and Indigenous Local Government.Sydney: ACELG.Retrieved July15, 2013, fromhttp://www.acelg.org.au/news-detail.php?id=273.

Transport and Local Government Committee (2012).Financial Sustainability of Remote Councils (Report No. 7).Brisbane: Queensland Parliament.

---

[1]Australian local governments are usually referred to as councils, shires, municipalities or cities.

[2] Queensland’s Indigenous councils were transitioned to Aboriginal Shire Council status and brought under the same legislative framework as other local governments in 2009.

[3]Prior to 2008, the majority of remote communities in the Northern Territory were covered by 55 small and highly dispersed community government councils incorporated voluntarily.

[4] The Productivity Commission is “the Australian Government’s independent research and advisory body on a range of economic, social and environmental issues affecting the welfare of Australians”, www.pc.gov.au, viewed on 16 July 2013.

[5]ACELG explored the impacts of fly-in fly-out and drive-in drive-out practices on local government in Morris, R. (2012). Scoping Study: Impacts of Fly-in Fly-out/Drive-in Drive-out Work Practices on Local Government.Sydney: ACELG.Retrieved July15, 2013, fromhttp://www.acelg.org.au/news-detail.php?id=219.

[6]The database can be accessed at: http://www.iken.net.au/communities-of-practice/rural-remote-and-indigenous-local-government/community-engagement-resources.