Recasting Leadership Reform in Australian Local Government: A Typology from Political Theory

Abstract

Changes to elected leadership in Australian local government have seen greater authority assigned to mayors in several jurisdictions. A Discussion Paper released by the Australian Centre for Excellence in Local Government (ACELG) (Sansom, 2012) has recommended further reforms, arguing inter alia that mayors ought to enjoy a 'personal mandate' and a stronger strategic role. This paper places these suggested reforms into context by developing a typology of local government leadership from political theory. We argue that this quadrilateral typology provides a critical portrait of Sansom's (2012) recommendations which, in this instance, have been transposed from two unitary systems of government (England and New Zealand) to the Australian federal system, without consideration of the literature examining stronger mayoral roles (see, for example, Mouritzen and Svara, 2002). It is argued that caution should be exercised when redrafting legislation governing mayoral authority, a process presently underway in New South Wales (NSW).

Mind the gap: Australian local government reform and councillors’ understandings of their roles

“…For example, the Although these changes to Australian local government have been documented (Aulich 2005;Marshall 2008) and the changes in the relationship between elected and appointed officials have been examined (Martin and Aulich 2012;Grant et al 2014), the overwhelming preoccupation of researchers in the Australian local government context continues to be with assessing the resultant change in operational efficiencies and long-term financial sustainability of local governments (see, for example, Dollery et al 2013;IPART 2015). In this article we are specifically concerned with how councillors perceive their role and whether this coincides with the role of councillors prescribed under the auspices of NPM reforms.…”

“…For example, there have been analyses of the efficacy (or otherwise) of particular institutional arrangements, especially the ideal role of the mayor in local governments (see, for example, Sansom 2012; Grant et al 2014). Another focus has been the relationship between elected and appointed officials.…”

“…More specifically, in the international literature as well as in Australia, elected representatives, i.e. councillors, have variously been described as workers, managers and policymakers; or as trustees, delegates and party soldiers; as member of a governing body and an elected representative; or as having an external or internal focus (Mouritzen and Svara 2002;Karlsson 2013b;Sansom et al 2013;Grant et al 2014). Further, as policymakers have increasingly turned to strengthening leadership arrangements at the local level as a way to enhance the performance of local government (see, for example Sansom 2012; Martin and Aulich 2012) scholarly attention has focused on the issue of power relations and 'leadership at the apex' of local government (Mouritzen and Svara 2002).…”

Participatory Budgeting in Australian Local Government: An Initial Assessment and Critical Issues

“…Types of Democracy in Local Government Source : Adapted from Haus and Sweeting () and Grant et al. (:7–8).…”

“…Third, ‘network’ democracy, characterised by cross‐jurisdictional activities by highly mobile and decisive leaders who nevertheless remain accountable on the basis of their visibility (and, we would add) their dispensability (Haus and Sweeting :281–283; see also Grant et al. ; Stoker , , ). Fourth, ‘participatory democracy’ grounded in a robust belief that ‘it is active citizens … who know best about the common good’ and as such ought to be placed to contribute to decision making.…”