Desmond M. Connor

Public Participation in Australia and New Zealand:

Current Status and Trends

Desmond M. Connor

Introduction

On the eve of the millennium, and the inaugural conference of the new Australasian Chapter of the International Association for Public Participation, it seemed appropriate to identify the current status and trends of public participation in Australia and New Zealand. This survey of practitioners, managers, academics and informed observers has been carried out by email in about one month. A similar survey was made across Canada in late 1995 and published the following spring (1). Another was made in late 1998 and early 1999 of Western Europe, using the same questionnaire. To ensure some level of validity and reliability, I have sought at least three responses from each country before synthesising the results for review by the contributors; in fact, I have six from Australia and three from New Zealand. While the dozen open-ended questions (see box) are demanding of respondents, I felt that a checklist of structured questions would not provide the scope, depth or quality of information which the former would generate. Of course, the price is a lower response rate. In the summaries which follow, I have kept the contributors' language as much as possible.

NOTE: some contributors have expressed divergent and critical views; I have let these comments stand. Issues of values and ethics have long been part of IAP2 conferences and meetings. Those raised by contributors here may provide agenda items for future Chapter meetings.

Questionnaire

I write to seek your help to describe the current status and trends in public participation in Australia and New Zealand in connection with the inaugural conference of the Australasian Chapter of the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) and a seminar and workshop I am giving in Sydney, NSW, Sept. 15-17. (Paragraph of response instructions omitted.)

1. How would you describe the CURRENT STATUS of public participation in planning and decision-making in your country?

2. Is this DIFFERENT when you look at corporations and the private sector versus the public sector - municipal, state and federal governments? If so, how?

3. What is the situation now in such FIELDS as health, education, waste management, transportation, energy, mining, forestry, etc.?

4. What TRENDS do you see in each of the above - across your country, private versus public sector, by industry? Does public participation seem to be increasing, staying the same or declining in each?

5. Are any particular TECHNIQUES e.g. public meetings, open houses, advisory committees etc. becoming more or less popular?

6. Are there PRESSURES for increased economy and efficiency in public participation?

7. Are STAKEHOLDERS becoming more important to proponents than the general public?

8. What is the RELATIONSHIP between public participation and Alternative Dispute Resolution/Mediation/Round Table processes? e,g. Convergence? Two solitudes? Competition/conflict?

9. Are more government agencies and engineering/environmental planning firms HIRING THEIR OWN in-house public participation people? How are INDEPENDENT public participation firms doing?

10. Is there more public participation in POLICY AND PROGRAM development or is it still mostly focussed on projects?

11. Any other COMMENTS, SUGGESTIONS, etc. about public participation???

12. Who would you NOMINATE as a good person to be on a panel at the conference to briefly describe the current status and trends about public participation in your country?

13. A little BACKGROUND data please:
    a. re public participation, are you a practitioner, a manager, a trainer, an interested observer or other?
    b. How long have you been doing this? _____ years
    c. Which country are you reporting on?

Australia

1. Current Status
   Varied - where participation is recognized, it can be quite good; other examples are poor. There appears to be a broadening recognition that consultation is required, but not a good understanding of what it is, or what appropriate processes are. In general, it has increased enormously over the past 17 years, but that doesn't mean it is done well in all cases - or sincerely in others. Good, though room for improvement - public reaction to projects being overwhelmingly negative scares some corporations and project managers into a cycle of "hiding" projects.

   Reasonable - an improvement on the past, but a failure to appreciate what true participation means; stuck in consultation mode often. Difficulty often in knowing HOW to do participation; problems with understanding the diversity of communities and a failure to appreciate the implications of bias. Generally very good with opportunities at local, state and federal government level to contribute through participation in the political process, administrative processes such as strategy development, and through administrative appeal processes.

   PP in EIA leaves a lot to be desired, as statutory requirements are dated. e.g. public only guaranteed an opportunity to comment late in the assessment process. The Commonwealth asks proponents and their consultants to report on what consultation was carried out in the EIS, but no indication of process or adequacy; some seem to do it well, others not. Numerous cases of indigenous people not being consulted about some major moves which concerned them. e.g. national park creation, some major regional planning studies.

2. Sectoral Differences
   Much (80%) done with local government, but hardly any with State and Federal; some with private development. Increasingly former govt. agencies (corporatised) have the money and are willing to commit. Large corporations and the govt. have a very good public participation process because they have the resources, but it is too onerous for private sector proponents. If private companies get into strife, different state govt. bodies will "leave them hanging." e.g. the Environmental Protection Agency can't endorse a proponent's environmental assessment because politically (externally and internally) they might be seen to be supporting development, which they don't want to be seen doing.

   No, my comments that public participation/consultation is a mixed bag apply equally to the public and private sectors, though the latter seldom do it except perhaps as market research. Corporations are less open to (public) involvement in their "internal" affairs, as seen recently in protests at shareholders meetings over the decision making process within these organizations. Enormous improvement on the part of local government, but the picture is very mixed; the Department of Defence has been much better than most private proponents.

3. Differences by Field
   PP seems to have become accepted as normal practice in a wide range of fields. e.g. health, transport, mining, natural resources and environment for policy development, planning studies and in determining project impacts, but not always done well or sincerely. Inconsistent - all fields have a consultation policy of some sort, some have accreditation systems (mining/environmental) but few have implementable systems. Also, no systemic monitoring, varied quality, no industry standards - still relies on individual expertise and integrity, willingness or commitment of agency etc. Transportation sector is quite good on the whole. Much the same across all fields, but Regional Forestry Agreements process means those agencies have more understanding; land management agencies are willing to try even public involvement to address the complex problem of salinity in agricultural areas. The realization that the public need to be involved is generally and genuinely accepted, but nobody is fully sure what it means.

   Participation in public processes is at an acceptable level, except perhaps in Victoria where the role of the Auditor General and the FOI Act has recently tightened in a way which reduces accountability and public participation. PP has occurred especially in the energy sector, private prisons, transportation and other out-sourced activities. Private sector participation is improving but at a much slower pace, with problems still in the forestry sector.

   Mining - highly variable; some excellent dialogue and negotiation for mutual advantage, some ineptitude and lack of good faith remains. Forestry - slow to recognize the need, and when it does, to include indigenous people. It is driven by very public conflict between conservationists and loggers, the small-scale entrepreneurs who actually cut the wood and who take the "flak" for the decisions of government, and large companies as to where logging is allowed. Over the last few years, we have had a Commonwealth-State process to form 20-year Regional Forest Agreements, but their public participation has been poorly conceived, and poorly integrated with the scientific and governmental deliberations and decision-making.

4. Trends
   Participation is increasing and training is in demand. Very few practitioners are ethical - there is confusion between public relations and consultation, education and participation, information and consultation. Most agencies pay lip service and little more - public relations companies jump on the bandwagon, charge a lot and produce little - doesn't help! Increasing public participation, primarily driven by govt. Too hard to guess - maybe some progress or maybe a worsening situation as little progress is made and disillusionment sets in. Situation varies amongst State governments; some improvement evident in the private sector, but it is slow coming. I think it is definitely increasing, but slowly and unevenly. I don't see much use of the conceptual understanding of public participation which has been available in the literature for over 15 years.There are few specialists in PP, although some of these, e.g. Wendy Sarkissian, are excellent.

5. Techniques
   Hopefully public meetings will decline!! We actively advocate against them in favour of taking consultation to the people; shopping centre displays, open days etc. are starting to get used more. Newsletters, fact sheets and information sheets are more prevalent. Advisory committees are common practice. A concern I have within my own Dept. is that we rely a lot on stakeholder advisory committees; we expect each representative on the committee to report back to their group, represent their group's views, and if possible to achieve consensus within their group. Not only has this been difficult to achieve, as they are only volunteers, but the rest of the interested population frequently is given an opportunity to input only through a written submission, if that. There is increasing community rep. fatigue and disillusionment. Much of what is achieved in the long run is through playing politics. Even though I have suggested open houses, they have seldom been used; people are nervous about possible open conflict. I've also suggested meeting with stakeholder groups at their own meetings - agency resouce intensive, but it worked really well on an earlier major project. However, not realistic for a State-wide issue. In previous projects, what worked well was providing feedback to the public on submissions received and stakeholder views, before or as part of the second round of consultation.

   Public meetings are decreasing due to the lynch mob mentality they seem to produce. Open houses are popular but static. Advisory committees are becoming more popular as then you seem to get only those people involved who are interested, and avoid the lynch mob mentality. Focus groups are fairly common. In SIA and indigenous land management, there is a clear trend toward using techniques which are better designed to suit the people. e.g.consulting Aboriginal people at places on their own land, and by a variant of the public meeting/public inquiry called the "bush meeting" which is adapted to their comfort. Everyone camps out bush, translation and a supportive environment are usually provided and the meetings are held in the open air with officials dressing casually etc.This has been the main mode for major government initiatives such as land claims, where the method was developed, and two public inquiries.

6. Pressures for Economy & Efficiency
   Yes and no - we place an emphasis on skilling people up to do it themselves; they only ask for us if the issue is sensitive and contentious. Yes, definitely - govt. seems to be going overboard with public participation; private sector just can't financially afford the level of participation the govt. is pushing. Not really, surprisingly - partly because little money was available before and because salinity is so serious. Not that I have noticed. I'm not sure - in my perception, it has seldom been done widely and well enough to have much to wind back! However, in the Aboriginal Affairs policy field, which has long been quite thorough about participation (with Aborigines only), I observe financial caution being used in the choice of methods. There is less need, though, thanks to the greater democratisation within the organization - the former govt. dept. was turned into a Commission with a fully elected indigenous board. A brilliant initiative in Western Australia, called the Social Impact Unit but in reality more engaged in coaching proponents and communities into successful PP, was wound up a few years ago, both due to the lack of recognition of its value and successes, and cost factors. A change of government was implicated too.Luckily, many of its staff found jobs in Queensland which was just improving its public participation processes very well.

7. Stakeholders vs. Public
   Stakeholders are becoming too important to proponents; we need to talk to the general community at least as much as to professional advocates. Stakeholders have more lobbying power, so the emphasis has tended towards them. The rise of the One Nation party in Queensland's last State election shocked major parties into realising that a segment of the general public had been ignored. No - equal weighting I'd say. I think that the term "stakeholder" probably does include the general public in Australian discussion on this.Yes, I think stakeholders in some areas are becoming more important to proponents than the general public.

   I'm not sure how you cast "general public" here; if at all relevant they should be picked up among "stakeholders." Affected communities are stakeholders; "public interest" categories are too, including the public at large if the proposal has large fiscal implications, such as contributing enough to govt. coffers to relieve public expenses elsewhere. However, I detect a trend towards negotiation with affected communities, which can cut out less clearly defined interests.

8. Public Participation vs. ADR, Mediation etc.
   There is some convergence between these, but mostly they are quite clearly separate. Regional staff are frequently worried about PP - they have often only consulted people directly affected or positively impacted. e.g. farmers wanting a dam, not conservationists who might oppose it, and insist it is community consultation. One of the reasons is that they have never been trained in dispute resolution, mediation etc. and yet these are essential skills. In Australia, people like to "fit in" and are afraid to express their attitudes, especially publicly - the eccentric or individual isn't revered as they are in the UK or US - and therefore there is infrequent opportunity to debate and develop negotiation skills. This attitude has to change - and is changing - especially in areas where there is increasing diversity of population. I've never had any experience with any of those processes (2 responses). The relationship between these field is "two solitudes" - ADR has been captured by the law profession.

   Especially in the indigenous field, I detect an interesting synergy. ADR is used among key stakeholders (such as proponent and affected communities) at different stages. In the early stages of proposal development, I'd call it PP, designed to identify and accommodate public concerns. In the late stages, negotiation has quite often been used to wrap up issues far more quickly, satisfactorily and efficiently than is possible under the EIA process. e.g. proponent and Aboriginal organisations negotiate a deal to solve outstanding concerns on a project and maximise indigenous benefits from the project, such as economic opportunities. This is far more effective than the Commonwealth or State environment agency collating public comments, then recommending in its 'assessment report' that certain actions be taken as a condition of project approval. Using negotiation, the parties work out what they want, without the environment agency second-guessing and merely recommending! Of course, the environment agency needs to acknowledge and be satisfied with the negotiation results in the assessment report. (Reference: Craig and Ehrlich, H. Ross, M. Lane and Northern Land Council (1996), _ Indigenous participation in environmental impact assessment_, Agency Review of Commonwealth Environmental Impact Assessment report series, Canberra: Commonwealth Environment Protection Agency. ISBN 0 642 25895 3

9. Employment
   There are hardly any pure participation people; mostly one person shows. I'd say yes - there are more govt. agencies and engineering/environmental planning firms hiring their own in-house public participation people - though I'm unsure. Independent firms do well, in my opinion, but I generally do not use them. No, the use of consultants is common. No, I don't think so; I think independent organizations are doing satisfactorily. Not much, as far as I am aware. They (govt. agencies and firms) are barely starting to hire social science staff, and with a couple of exceptions, e.g. Queensland, these are concentrated on social assessment types of duty.

10. Policy vs. Project Focus
    Still too much on projects - if only we could influence policy!! Policy participation is basically aimed at stakeholders and is therefore very close to the political process - it is almost always doomed. Just starting to get PP in policy - early days yet. About even I think. On non-environmental questions in indigenous affairs, I have often seen excellent PP on policy and program development. e.g. the development of a national indigenous health strategy some years ago. A four-person indigenous task force travelled the country and consulted local groups.

11. Comments, suggestions etc.
    Process needs to be fairer from industry standpoint. If we do encounter some problems we need the support of state gov't regulatory agencies in areas where we have taken all due regard. Fair enough to kick us where we've fallen down, but if the public is out of line no agency is game to support industry over the public. Gov't process at this stage seems to be unrealistic.

    Your questions assume that Australia will be somewhat similar to North America. Public participation really doesn't exist here as a separate specialisation. We don't have the consultants to do it - but a handful of good academics do; we barely have social assessment established. For instance, the largest EIA consulting companies have only in the last few years become serious about hiring social scientists to help conduct EIA ; one was a social assessment specialist with good PP skills, but left because frustrated that she was not being used well. Another is an archaeologist, not personally skilled in our area but, as a social scientist, willing to sub-contract the skills.

Background of Contributors

Practitioner in and out of govt. for 10 years; practitioner, mostly in govt. for 20+ years; practitioner for 4 years; academic, adviser and expert for 15+ years; practitioner for 10 years; practitioner and trainer for 25 years. Geographically, two contributors are from Queensland, two from NSW and one each from Victoria and ACT.

New Zealand

1. Current Status
   Two respondents characterised it as "variable". At both the legislative and policy level public participation is mixed, sometimes with very short periods for consultation. e.g. the 1998 government energy reform package, and two weeks for consultation on legislation for Infrastructure Auckland. The Resource Management Act (1991) review process is in its fourth stage - much input but few signs that it is being considered. Businesses and NGOs find that the RMA processes are too time consuming and costly and nothing changes. At the RMA project level, there have been moves to limit public participation by limiting notification to neighbours and stakeholders and excluding the general public. Recent Ministry of the Environment data shows that less than 5% of resource consents are notified annually.

2. Sectoral Differences
   Perhaps municipal governments are best. Central government budgets have all been cut, so consultation is an easy target.

3. Differences by Field
   Proponents seem to be able to get pretty much what they want? PP is decreasing under the Forests Act. The proposed road reform package would have restricted consultation between a roading company and a local council to the development of local roading policy. The public would not have had an opportunity for direct input, and yet a local council does not always represent a community!

4. Trends
   Overall, "required" and statutory consultation is increasing but the quality is decreasing. We need to find new and improved ways to attract input from all groups and then take it into account in decision making. Otherwise, why bother with consultation and PP? Also the public are expecting more consultation and for their views to be actively taken into consideration. This is especially true for tangata whenua, or those who want the Treaty of Waitangi to be honoured.

   It varies - government is committed to its free market values, so many things are passing out of govt. into the private sector. Public dissatisfaction seems to be on the increase, but this is not necessarily reflected in increased participation.

   Central government agencies release policy and discussion papers for comment and submissions. However, the degree of submissions analysis is quite variable because of limited resourcing and pre-determined decisions. What is the point of requesting submissions if views are not going to be properly considered and responded to?

5. Techniques
   Advisory committees seem to be the most common, in various forms. Charrettes are quite popular at the local planning level for addressing urban design and growth management issues. There seems to be a trend of bigger and more discussion papers before legislation is developed. e.g. RMA reform. But as above, do responses have any influence on what is proposed?

6. Pressures for Economy and Efficiency
   ABSOLUTELY, from government; this underlies some of the proposed changes to the Act. YES! A major driver for change and removing costs of compliance - a catch phrase for central government and the business community in NZ. It is very hard to reconcile reducing costs of compliance and promoting PP at the same time - something must give.

7. Stakeholders versus Public

   Yes, they are. Perhaps they always have been - depends on how you define a stakeholder. Within our legislation, anyone who makes a submission has legal standing and the right to appear at consents hearings. Possibly yes - as outlined with proposed changes to the RMA to bring in limited notification; this may reduce full notification and only provide for input from targeted groups.

8. Public Participation vs. ADR, Mediation etc.
   Complementary - the Environment Court has been very active in promoting ADR to resolve cases prior to a full hearing. Very little of the above is happening here.

9. Employment
   Not aware of any dedicated PP firms - not too many specialists in this area as yet. Not so many participation people - more Social Impact Assessment types.

10. Policy vs. Project Focus
    Mainly focussed on projects, but the pressure is building re policy.

11. Comments, Suggestions etc.
    Overall, PP has increased but quality is variable and we need new approaches to involve all groups. The "old" way of submission processes is very inadequate where there is limited analysis of submissions and where they get ignored. Why bother? New ways to effectively engage people need to be found so that they can fully participate in decision making.

    I'm seeing less public participation at present, but I think it may be just a phase; I'm seeing more mediation and arbitration work.

Practitioner for 10 years; academic and practitioner for 20 years; environmental investigator for 6 years. The contributors are located on both the North and the South Island of New Zealand.

Acknowledgements

I am most grateful to the following contributors whose views are summarised above: Claudia Baldwin, Jack Cembalisty, Lucy Cole-Edelstein, Colin Goodrich, David Holland, Phil Hughes, Stan Rodgers, Helen Ross and Frank Vanclay. (Includes 3 Kiwis)

This study was conducted in recognition of the inaugural conference of the Australasian Chapter of the International Association for Public Participation held in Sydney, NSW, September 17, 1999.

Desmond M. Connor is an applied sociologist-anthropologist (Ph.D., Cornell University, 1963) with an international practice in public participation; he is also president of Connor Development Services Ltd. in Victoria, B.C., Canada. For further information, see this website or email connor@connor.bc.ca or fax 250-658-8110.

Overview:	Homepage	Public Consultation 2000+	Desmond Connor	Library
Publications:	Manual	Resource Book	Video Program
Training:	Workshops	Customized Tutorial	Internet Tutorial
Consulting:	Consulting Services	Design Service	Teleconsulting

DESMOND M. CONNOR "Improving the Practice of Public Consultation" 407-5332 Sayward Hill Crescent, Victoria, BC, V8Y 2H8 Voice: 250-658-1323                     Fax: 250-658-8110 connor@connor.bc.ca           www.connor.bc.ca

Website by Word Crunchers, Etc.

(6793)