Department of Premier and Cabinet

CONSULTATION WORKSHOPS

Key Findings

Collated notes for consultation workshops – A Tasmanian Government Framework for Engagement.Consultation areas

1. Beaconsfield 2. Brighton 3. Burnie4. Devonport5. Geeveston 6. Glenorchy 7. Hamilton8. Hobart9. Kingston10. Launceston11. Longford12. New Norfolk13. Oatlands 14. Queenstown15. Ravenswood 16. Scottsdale17. Smithton18. Sorell 19. St Helens20. Triabunna

Comments on the consultation process and Framework There is a lot of good will, energy and talent in the community, particularly if

the community is approached in the right way. Look at the language used and the way people are invited to consultations.

This consultation has attracted people who understand middle class jargon. There was concern the Framework document would be a shield and block

between people and the Government. Re-invent how policy gets written. See Don Lenihan’s Rescuing Policy: The

Case for public engagement http://www.ppforum.ca/rescuing-policy

213/30690

Questions What can be done to keep this project on track if there is a change of

government? Has any work been carried out to determine the types of engagement

methods that work for particular groups? (We will address this in the information resources for particular communities/population groups).

Could the Framework be extended for use by Local Government as a Community Engagement model?

To include in Framework Beyond our principles and standards to be included in the Framework, we

could also recognise the rights and responsibilities of the community in engagement (such as right to be heard, right to make a complaint and relevant grievance procedure).

A mission statement around community engagement. Guidelines for engagement are better than rules. Rules may be too

prescriptive and prevent creative approaches from being developed. A resource to assist community to engage with government (‘bottom up’

engagement) could complement the Framework).

Important points No community is too hard to work with. We need to understand that

community engagement may not be easy but it is worth it. It is important to be aware that some communities may need to be prepared for participation in engagement. Not everyone is at a point where they can see beyond their own, or their community’s immediate needs. Communities may fail to participate in the best way as they are not ready.

How do we keep communities sustainable? It is important to know what the Government’s strategic priorities are for communities, this will help communities understand what it can expect from the Government and foster honest relationships.

The Tasmania Together initiative and processes were referred to by multiple communities as having been a valuable and, perhaps, a wasted opportunity.

From the community, there was a feeling that the government/agencies always say ‘no’ to initiatives that could create better economic and social opportunities for communities. It was viewed that if it were easier to get a ‘yes’ it may inspire proactivity from both community and government.

Whilst some communities feel over-consulted (and may therefore ‘tune out’), some communities feel left out, left behind and ignored.

In some smaller communities, there may not be key central points that can coordinate or mobilise the community to the point where it has a voice, or even spread the message through a community.

313/30690

Some communities do not have a good relationship with their council. This was viewed as problematic.

Communications should come under the umbrella of community engagement, not the other way around.

A significant change is required to alter some of the entrenched perspectives that the Government has in regard to community engagement.

General themes Tasmania is not big – it should be easy to engage. Whilst much of the consultation focussed on the need for the Government to

improve its community engagement, there was also recognition of good engagement (DIER (roads and highways), DoE (Child and Family Centres) and DHHS (improvements to consumer engagement). There was recognition that the Government does listen, however, there was significant need for improvement – especially with inter and intra-agency communication and collaboration.

Changing attitudes towards the value and importance of community engagement is required by both the government and the community.

Bottom up The importance of bottom up engagement (rather than ‘top-down’ agency

led engagement) was a recurring theme throughout the consultations. It was repeatedly said that there is a lack of understanding in the community as to how it can engage and raise issues with government. The community feel that there needs to be education on how government works, how, why and when it should happen, and who to contact.

There should be more emphasis on the community connecting with government to strengthen the two-way process/communication. This two-way communication could be facilitated by key community members.

There was also a sense in some communities that Government was constantly/consistently ‘doing to communities’ rather than asking them what they may want or need. This was seen as causing apathy and disengagement. The Framework should encourage ways to facilitate collaborative efforts between government and community to empower communities.1

Understanding communities In order to have an experience and understanding of what life is like for

people in that community (their concerns, hopes for the future etc), it is important that Government is at the grass roots level of the community.

Technology and statistics do not replace the reality and emotional experience of living in a community, which is why it is important to go the physical location.

1 From one workshop it was suggested that prior to the welfare state, communities were much more apt to develop their own solutions without intervention or the expectation that government should do it for them.

413/30690

Respect that the community are the experts on their issues and approach people as equals. Make sure engagement is grounded in the community – walk with community.

Different communities have different needs. It’s important to note that there is significant variance, diversity, division and differences within and between communities. It is extremely important to avoid assumptions and stereotypes.

Know the demographic of where you are. This will impact on the engagement methods chosen.

Some communities operate as geographic silos, based on their characteristics (level of affluence, number of social problems or isolation).

Understand the real issues and lives of people (some people live in poor conditions, poverty).

Engaging the disengaged or hard to engage This was a concern for many communities and raised many questions. Where are the people who never walk through the door – how do they get

heard? How can you reach the unreachable such as older people who aren’t online? The importance of developing relationships with community houses to

facilitate engagement, as well as the role as other organisations who are in a position to infiltrate communities to communicate and improve social inclusion (such as the Red Cross, COTA Tas).

Take the time to know who the people are in a community. Different groups need different engagement methods/mechanisms. More recently fly-in fly-out (FIFO) workers are isolated from a community. The lower socio-economic groups know the government is there to help but

don’t know where to go. In some communities members have had lifelong knockbacks that have hit people hard and they feel little hope for a better future.

Political considerations Feedback for the community suggests that it is often easier to access a

Minster rather than infiltrate a government agency. People sometimes feel more comfortable going directly to the politician to raise their issues.

There were missed views about the presence of local members (both State and Federal) in communities.

However, it was no uncommon for a government agency (or council) to be contacted by an electorate officer on behalf of a constituent. This may be due to experience on a particular issue, or that government offices being intimidating.

People may contact politicians, not because they want to be engaged with but because they want to see action.

513/30690

The impact of elections or change of government puts us back to square one. The disconnection between the political arm and the bureaucracy was

acknowledged.Young people Involving young people in consultation is critical to their engagement as an

adult. Youth particularly like to see their ideas enacted. Young people are up for engagement. They know that they have got to

stand up. Rural and isolated communities Rural and isolated areas can feel forgotten by government – they deserve

personal engagement too. In rural areas and communities with smaller populations, it reported that

there were additional difficulties in facilitating community engagement with people outside the town centre, due to isolations, low income, no access to technology, and no desire to engage. From one workshop we heard:

It is labour intensive consulting with regional, remote communities with low levels of literacy. You need to travel to see them but the travel and time is often not factored into the framework of funding. It is important to build a relationship with these communities otherwise they will not take you in. Intensive legwork is required on the ground but this is not recognised with funding resources as measurable outcomes are based on quantity, not quality or qualitative outcomes.

Particular to rural areas, there are a number of external challenges that farmers are facing that are pushing them out of business. This has significant impacts on individuals and communities.

Government agencies From the community’s perspective, there is not enough evidence to suggest

or show that government agencies engage adequately with each other enough – this is key frustration for community. Internal communication within and between governments agencies is viewed as crucial.

There is a perception that younger or new bureaucrats do not understand communities outside of Hobart and efforts to help younger State Servants better understand the realities that communities face should be undertaken.

The line of operation of agencies may be too narrow (silos) to consider or see the collateral damage or unintended consequences government decision making may have on some communities.

The Service Tasmania (one-stop-shop) was praised. It was suggested that perhaps Service Tas shops could arrange appointments for department/agency people to meet clients and the community in their town. The idea is that government goes to the people when appropriate and it was expressed that it would be good for relationships if departments were to venture out of their offices from time to time.

613/30690

There were comments about government departments referring people to websites, instead of explaining things to them or answering their questions.

Budget cuts are noticeable in terms of community experience in accessing information and support on certain issues (Crown Land and EPA examples). This is also related to the restructuring of Government departments/divisions that are often not adequately communicated.

Council gets the blame for State Government inaction. Interaction with government agencies can be problematic and frustrating for

community members. The point of contact within an agency has a significant impact on a person’s perception of the Government, if that person is not helpful the community member may feel pushed around, unheard or frustrated. Their first point of contact becomes their experience of government.

It can be difficult to speak with the right person, as clear channels to the relevant officers can be an issue (DHHS and DIER used as examples). If people can’t get to who they need to, they may not pursue the issues that are important to them/affecting them because it is too difficult.

It can be difficult to navigate government websites, where to go to have your issue addressed and how to follow up to make sure what happens needs to happen.

Regional partnerships Not enough work done in conjunction with regional partnerships between

federal and State level. There needs to be better coordination between the three tiers of Government.

Red tape Red tape is a frustration (regulations can feel stifling) and can be

compounded by a perceived lack of communication between agencies or between the Government and communities/ individuals/businesses. There is a perception that there is too much bureaucracy and process. People tire of how long things take.

Relationships Building relationships and respecting those relationships is crucial and it is

important to realise that relationships take time. Don’t assume that information technology will meet or replace the need and

value of face-to-face engagement. Going to meet with a community once just won’t do it. People need to know

and trust who they are dealing with, this helps people to feel comfortable with each other and fosters a sense of accountability.

Change The role of government should be to communicate with, work and plan with

the community to manage and progress future change. The example given related to the closure of a community’s hospital. It was reported that the need for closure was there for many years, however, there was no future

713/30690

planning at the time the issues were identified (10-20 years earlier) to ease the transition for the community. When the hospital closed, the community then went into grief and there was no support from the Government.

The relationship between resistance to change and disadvantage was discussed at a few of the workshops. This was viewed in the context of people’s reaction to change when they had lower levels of personal resilience due to lack of income or literacy.

Part of the change process is to manage expectations and communicate the exit or other strategy.

Discussion needs to occur if things do not work out well for communities. Take an ‘opportunity’ based focus – not what is being changed or

removed/taken away but what will be offered in its place. Take time to communicate this but also be real – if you are going to close a school, expect and respect the grief of the community and involve them prior to the action, during and after. Maintain the involvement of the community throughout the process.

Levels of engagement There was a feeling in the community that community engagement needs to

be at the level of empowerment. Being clear and honest about the level of engagement that is being

undertaken is crucial – don’t call it a consultation if it’s an information session.

Provide examples of levels of engagement to help community understand what is meant.

Communication Lack of communication from the government to the community was seen as

a very significant issue. There is often not enough publicity of engagement opportunities.

Communication factors Need multiple channels for communication that link up at a central point. Electoral officers who are MPs’ staff could be plugged into this project to get

the word out and spread information. The need to improve communication, for instance not being told that a

meeting was cancelled. The concept of above and below communication: above communication

being advertising, websites etc. and below communication being face-to-face, informal and innovative.

Databases with relevant contact details are important for communicating with people in communities (email, post and phone).

813/30690

People’s roles change over time, so contact people in the local area to communicate, going through old email networks is not enough. This is also true in government as people move on and knowledge and relationships are lost. In this situation, generic email addresses should be better utilised by the Tasmanian Government.

Identify the people in the community who can be a point of communication, who have the networks within community. These people can champion the opportunities to engage and spread information about relevant government initiatives. Community Development Officers in local government are an excellent example of this. However, also being mindful that many service providers are too busy doing their services to promote and get the word out.

Coordinate at the local level, for instance include information into one comprehensive survey so people not drowning in information and share information.

Online communication Can be an issue if online is the only communication The Regional Economic

Development Plans (REDP) were only available online and not widely advertised/promoted.

Make sure people are ready for things to go online. For instance, it was reported that when Adult Education went to online registration in the North West the community were not ready for the change and as a result the program has basically fallen over.

Methods of communication Important to use multiple methods. Many different mechanisms can be effective, depending upon the area, what

the purpose is and who you want to target, for instance:

o bulk mail outs through AUSTPOST

o childcare Newsletterso displays in community and

neighbourhood centres/houses (TACH)

o doctor surgery reception rooms

o e-mail and email networkso find local champions or

relevant service providers to assist with word of mouth

o flyerso hospitals and community

health centres

o Internet and websiteso letter/newsletter dropso local government

o local and mainstream newspapers or publications

o personal approacheso personalised invitationso phone o posters in shop windowso presentation at meetings (parents

and friends, service provider meetings, progress associations, schools, service clubs)

o presentations at Service Club meetings

913/30690

o public noticeso radio advertisements and

broadcasts

o spreading the message via word of mouth

o Service Tasmaniao via service providers.

It is important that people receive reminders and confirmation if they RSVP. Word of mouth still good for reaching older people. Email is a preferred way of communication, however, it excludes households

without internet/computer access and some people feel inundated with the all other information they have to manage through their inboxes.

Face-to-face engagement is crucial, particularly for isolated community members – like to see face behind the email.

Definition Consistent feedback about the definition was that it requires a reference to

outcomes and two-way engagement/communication between governments and the community and reference to feedback.

Other comments included that the definition needed to incorporate listening (‘consulted but didn’t listen), community involvement and empowerment of community.

Stakeholders versus ‘community’ Stakeholder identification and processes start at the beginning of the process

to either work up the concept or be involved in it early (for example, regarding land use, go to the owner to approve the use of the land before committing to the infrastructure).

Questions: stakeholder engagement and management How are the differences between community and stakeholders reflected in

engagement strategies? How much power do individuals have and how is that to be managed? How do you identify the “circle of influence” within a community? How to reach people for legislative and policy review? How do we get cross sectoral engagement? Number of people consulted with – how many people constitute ‘enough’ to

make it worthwhile? How do you determine whether an individual or an organisation is ‘qualified’

or most appropriate to participate in engagement? Stakeholder identification/issues It was felt that usually those that have ‘anti’ views are the only ones that

speak out.

1013/30690

Consider the level of community representation with regard to the dominating group/ organisation/individual (is it really representative or is it the most convincing view? It might pay to dig a little deeper, there may be a better solution/consideration to make).

Ensure existing organisations/community groups are consulted. There is a tension between ensuring communication is broad enough to

include a broad range of communities, sectors and interests verses targeting the right stakeholders.

Include the stakeholders who advocate for the community. It can be difficult to include people that aren’t attached to an association or

organisation. Local government should be the first point of call.

Principles and Standards Principles should be reflected as values and mother statements – we need to

explain what we mean. Outside ‘principles’ it is of primary importance that community engagement

is valued and there is a commitment, not just to process, but to quality. Principles should be appropriately communicated to the audience being

consulted (ie CALD, disability, low literacy). Principles include (ticks indicated the most reoccurring themes):

o accountability;o adequately resourced;o clarity and clear communication (for example, be clear on expectation

of participants and on what outcomes can be delivered);o create a safe space for further discussion;o flexibility to meet community needs;o feedback, following up and reporting back. Let the community know if

they have a future opportunity to contribute to discussion;

o genuine/not just a ‘tick-off’ exercise;

o honest, upfront and no spin from the Government. This is very frustrating for the community;

o involvement and inclusiveness and open to a range of people (for example, include nursing homes);

o listen to what is being said – value contributions;o mutual obligation (communities);o non-judgemental approach is crucial. Being able to suspend your own

judgement and accept what is relevant for the participant. See people

1113/30690

and make them know they are not being judged, are being heard and you’re not there just to pump yourself up and walk away;

o openness, o planned;o respect;o review and evaluation of how consultation was conducted. ie. What

worked well, what did not;o time: enough time, timeframes, timing and timely

o transparency – what is driving the community engagement process? Lay everything on the table and provide the full picture;

o trust (mutual trust); o value engagement.

Time as a principle Enough time: allow enough time to enable people and organisations to

contribute. This is especially true for local government and community groups and associations that may meet monthly. They need enough time to digest information and to provide a well-considered approach. If not enough time is given to the process it can result in a lack of responsiveness, leading to disengagement and cynicism.

Timely: engage early in the process. Consult and when it works for communities.

Timeframes: be clear when the community can expect to hear back from Government or when they can expect the outcome. Communication should remain open throughout this time.

Timing: When is engagement undertaken? Certain times of the year make it difficult (Christmas, school holidays) and even certain times of the day prevent full community participation (after hours and weekends may be more appropriate).

Managing expectations Be clear on who is going to report back and when. Be upfront about realities and limitations. Just because views are voiced doesn’t mean there will be action in that area

– be upfront. Need sincere people in government with the power to act. Provide pragmatic timeframes. Participants want something tangible back – how is this going to happen?

We will give input if the Government brings us back reports and feedback together.

1213/30690

Current practicesAdvisory groups Advisory groups can work well but they need to have clear terms of

reference and sunset clauses need to be included. Advisory groups and reference groups can sometimes take on an identity of

their own. They may not bring genuine feedback from the groups that they are supposed to represent.

It is important to set up advisory or community reference groups before projects start – not after all of the decisions have been made.

Consultants Outsourcing consultation – will obligations/commitments in the framework

apply? Direct engagement from government is the key. Consultants do not have

the same investment. However, getting the right people with the right training is essential. Other people involved in the engagement need to make sure that the right information is collected and correctly interpreted.

Frustrations Common experience is that ‘consultations’ have generally been tokenistic

and not conducted well. There is an expectation that community should engage but there is a strong feeling that exists in the community that decisions are made prior to consultation. Examples highlighted were land acquisitions; planning scheme; change of speed limits on rural roads; school closure; and bus service.

Condescension or patronising responses to requests to the Minster that seemed full of someone else’s words. It doesn’t feel like a genuine response. People would rather have a straight out ‘no’ than have to read through ‘fluff.’

Consultation may not be genuine. The consultant may be just pursuing an agenda. The community is left to wonder, have they picked up the key issues? Have they understood why people behave the way they do?

Engagement only by invitation: the Government’s community cabinet it’s by invitation only.

Frustration that public servants won’t or can’t make decisions, everything gets pushed up to the Minister.

Some organisations feel that the Government does not view them as ‘worthy’ to be consulted.

Over engaging is an issue, especially if there is little or no coordination. People do not feel listened to. People want action, not just engagement. This is particularly true for young

people.

1313/30690

People may be frustrated by their own communities. Apathetic communities are frustrating.

There is also a feeling that engagement only happens when it’s a crisis or at election time, when it’s too late. Politicians seem to intervene and engage once the damage is done, like an ambulance at the bottom of a cliff.

How to engage Community engagement is a continual process – you have to keep going

back. Processes need to by flexible to reflect the dynamism of the community.

Only engage when you are in a position to act on what those consulted said. Find out the best way to consult (including the best time) with a particular

community, this may involve ringing around and speaking to key players and contacts first.

Consult with purposes and reason, not because you have to. Appreciate and respect the contribution of volunteers, in terms of their time

and any expenses incurred. Acknowledgement of distances/time/cost to participate.

Benefits and challengesBenefits Economic development is stated as a benefit of community engagement but

not social, cultural etc. Other benefits include:

o an opportunity to smooth out divided views in communities;o being on the ground will help to get to the heart of a problem or issue

quickly;o communication pathways are improved;o community buy-in;o day-to-day experience of people in communities is shared and

understood;o ensuring government has legitimacy and a genuinely participatory

government. It enhances the role of government and government benefits from community engagement as well as the community;

o individual capacity and capability is improved;o mutual learning (government to community, community from

government);o opportunities for community leadership are uncovered;o people are heard; and

1413/30690

o the community has the answers, or if given the opportunity can come up with answers.

Barriers for community Opportunities for engagement are too ‘middle class,’ and are therefore not

accessible to a large section of the population. Abstract concepts (like community engagement) mean nothing to many people in the community. People want to know how engagement will effect and benefit them.

People feel powerless. Access and resource issues (computer issues, childcare, not enough time, not

enough money). Bureaucratic language (jargon, grant terminology, acronyms) and systems

are viewed as impenetrable. Changes to industry affect local communities, causing barriers to

engagement and other challenges for the community. Confusion with number of consultation papers (which level of government). Cultural issues – rights and confidence to communicate. Fear of speaking in public or taking on responsibility (especially in small

communities, different views can come from the same family). Government websites can be hard to find and navigate. Information overload is an issue for people. Too much, too soon is as bad as

too little, too late. Lack of skills (personal, literacy) can be a barrier to engagement. People

need confidence and drive to do consultation. People feel they have nothing to contribute so put themselves down with

statements like “What would I know, I’m only a mother.” Not enough to have one meeting. Other alternatives should be considered. People often don’t fit boxes. Negative or unsatisfactory previous experience may be a barrier to

engagement. At times people are reluctant to form committees to provide feedback in an

ongoing way that involves ongoing responsibility. Some people just want one-off input.

Social and geographical isolation. When government initiatives go nowhere. For instance, the social inclusion

network/committee that formed under the encouragement of the social inclusion strategy went nowhere and as a result, the people involved in these groups become frustrated and disenfranchised.

The person with the most knowledge – not necessarily the best person/organisation to present/facilitate the consultation.

1513/30690

There is a level of cynicism in the community based on the history it has had with government ‘engagement.’

Time limits and lack of flexibility limit the ability to engage fully with communities.

Transient people in communities. Transport – no daily public transport. Weather (an issue in the West Coast). Web – only meeting some needs, often can’t download and it costs to do so.

Why don’t people engage? There is a minority in the community who want to be involved in decision

making. There is a perception amongst some who would say ‘hasn’t government been

elected to make decisions? Why is there a need for engagement? Or, what difference am I going to make?

Some people don’t know how to deal with letters from Government that appear to be a brush-off. A lot don’t know how to take the next step and feel nobody is listening.

People may feel linked to issues through the media and opt out of public forums and meeting. How issues are presented in the media can also impact on whether the community will engage (for instance, has the debate been sensationalised, are there certain stakeholders who are generating attention or is only one side of the argument being told (positive versus negative outcomes)). It is hard to get the full story.

There was agreement that people do not or will not engage unless the decision will affect them directly. People go in and out of engagement, depending on the issue at hand.

People may not want to engage in political debates.

How to improve engagement Any efforts to improve community engagement must be measurable –

determine how you will measure the outcomes of the engagement, prior to engaging.

Celebrating when engagement does work! This can be empowering for the community.

Consider new options, like the role of citizen’s juries to improve engagement. Discussion around sensitive issues at forums needs duty of care. Engagement is not just about good speakers, analysts, facilitators – it’s about

good listeners. Ensure that community consultation is needed – sometimes the science

needs to be done first.

1613/30690

Government needs to think more like a business and be more proactive in its engagement (example of the Bendigo Bank setting up a stand in the local shopping centre to talk to people and do the market analysis).

Information comes from the ground and this is fed to a higher level (council or State Government) to deal with work and outcomes.

Keep it simple. Know and spend time in the community. Learn from your experience and share the knowledge. Look at what we aren’t doing and ask ourselves the hard questions

(evaluation). Make it easier - give community information in a way that is meaningful to

them, this may be written or verbal. Enable people to engage in a range of ways.

Make sure the Government has a clear goal/vision of what the engagement is for.

Select venues where people feel comfortable, safe and welcomed. Sufficient resourcing. To avoid consultation being “hi-jacked” by activists/lobby groups with a

specific agenda, look for ways to hear the silent majority. This may have to occur privately and outside of formal engagement sessions. For example, meet with key stakeholders first and then hold public meetings. This means that considerations and requirements can be made and raised in a safe environment, before testing and discussing them in a public forum.

Government outputs At the practical level, it would be good if there was a black and white format

for government information/documents as colour can be too expensive to print. Also use formats that allow organisations to easily cut and paste information from government documents.

Present dot points, not long documents so it is easier to respond. Facilitators must be skilled and need to be right for the job, know the

community dynamics and be good with a particular cohort group. Officers who go to communities need to be knowledgeable about meeting processes/protocols and how to handle difficult situations.

Make sure address and date on invitation is correct. Make it personal. Personal is meaningful. Tell stories and provide examples

to help get discussion going.Process Address access issues. Be aware of timing. Don’t rely on feedback from meetings, use other mediums too.

1713/30690

Engage as early as possible - failure to engage early limits opportunity and can create less than good will in the community. Invitations to attend to be timely and respectful.

Feedback and follow up with participants. Get back to the community about what happened to their input (even if nothing). People need to see outcomes.

Food is an incentive (food and refreshments also show appreciation to participants).

Give thanks to those in the community who help organise the consultations with you.

Go where people are (communities, good neighbour councils, LINCs men’s sheds, social events).

Make sure that agencies have engaged and coordinated with each other before going out to communities.

There need to be grievance procedures for community members to raise issues with government if things aren’t done right, this will help to ensure accountability. Evaluation practices/frameworks need to reflect and include this.

To help build relationships, leave enough time to socialise after the engagement activity.

Cultural shift Where are the executives of government when it comes to community

engagement? Engage with the decision makers. The people who have the power don’t often hear the voices on the ground. The message can get diluted on the way to the top. It may be valuable to have people on the ground meet with the executive level of agencies to explain what is happening on the ground, first hand.

Cross boundaries so people spread the word. Tell people to let their networks know about the consultations.

Up skill people in the community to work with experts in the development and redesign of complex policies. Start with doable, smaller initiatives in the community.

Third party buy-in and partnerships Some individuals, groups, associations and organisations may prefer to go

through peak bodies rather than raise their own issues with government. Consider allocating funding to different organisations to do the consultations. Give the community consultation to someone (an organisation) to own. Let

them drum up support. Follow up with advocates in the community who can be trusted to speak on

behalf of others in the community. Consider all potential proponents of community engagement, for instance,

groundsmen from a local government.

1813/30690

See the Statewide Register for the Consumer and Carer Scheme. Train people up for facilitating consultation.

The COTA Tasmania model of COTA Champions was viewed as a good model http://www.cotatas.org.au/programs-events/conversations-with-our-community/cota-champions-2/

How do we know we have it right? Check/review if it is working! Communities believe that they can trust the Government to listen and act. Community will know how to access government. Feedback is provided and follow up is undertaken. Getting the right and consistent information out to the right. Government is voted in again (!). Limited complaints after engagement has taken place. Sufficient resourcing for consultation process (if choosing between quality

and quantity – going for quality every time). The real issues are being identified, this may be outside the initial project

scope but may be a solution (for instance, people cutting class at Rosny college was due to the bus schedule servicing rural areas, not because the young people didn’t want to be in class).

What you hope to achieve is sustainable. For example, if you are delivering a program or service (CFC say), after the initial consultation and involvement from community it takes a positive life of its own. If it’s about building partnerships, the partnerships are lasting and mutually beneficial.

When people who don’t normally engage are engaged.

When doesn’t government engage? How do you make sure government doesn’t hide behind decisions not to

negotiate (eg behind a ‘commercial in confidence’ excuse)? There needs to be a statement or guide to determine ‘when not to engage’

or not. There needs to be accountability if there is no consultation on initiative (such as a watchdog or ombudsman).

In instances when the community is not engaged (such as a bushfire emergency, it is recognised that Government must act without prior consultation but they need to communicate post recovery.

It is unfair to not engage on the issues that really affect and are important communities. The community deserves the right information.

1913/30690

Commercial in confidence What do we mean by commercial information? Does this make it too easy

for government to decide not to negotiate (report) engage with the community.

Commercial in confidence should not override transparency - it’s important that communities know whose pockets are being lined by government investment or decisions.

Nothing Government does should be commercially confident as often used as an excuse. It’s our money.

Local government Consultation by local government on behalf of the State Government may be

more effective at times. Create a central point in the community as there doesn’t seem to be central

registers in times like fires and the recovery stages. This could be a task for the community development section of Council.

‘Government’ can be intimidating. Some councils do not have a good response to their attempts at engagement (meetings, submissions to strategic reviews). If people don’t engage at a local government level, it will be a bigger task for state government.

Tools and resources The website needs a link to subject specific topics in the relevant agencies. A website with demographic information would be great for copying and

pasting into other documents. Establish a database so know when groups meet and times to avoid. Use pictures and concrete examples. “How people talk to government” – have a title that empowers people to talk

and gives them the tools to talk.Population group information resources It is important to avoid stereotyping particular groups and respect the

differences within particular population groups and communities (ie. Not all rural communities are alike).

Uniqueness of North West Some towns are forgotten – engagement should be open and available to

people living outside the main towns (Zeehan)

2013/30690

WebsiteConsiderations Any website should be linked into what is already happening in the region or

community driven. Enquiries stop if website has too many steps Important to note that not everybody is confident, literate or physically able

to use computers. Lots of people are not great with computers – how to link in and optimise online access centre network.

People will only go to website if interested and they know it is there in the first place! Website must be promoted.

Some groups may be only interested in one area, not whole of government. The structure of the website may benefit from being organised by subject,

rather than the agency that is undertaking the engagement.Features A website with demographic information would be great for copying and

pasting into other documents. Make sure that the text can be copied and pasted into word documents.

Could an App be developed? Being up-to-date is critical. Calendar or community notice board may be useful. Cue for people to go there for information, such as an email alert system. Establish a database so know when groups meet and times to avoid. Feedback forum/comments channel available. Hover function to introduce the information behind the link – will save

multiple clicking for people as ‘too many ‘clicks’ is not good.’ Make contacts on the website easy to find (make sure there is contact on the

website to help navigate any difficulties). Make information more concise and easier to find. It can be hard to know

where to go and may be helpful to organise by topics not departments (tenancy given as an example).

New DOE website is good. No broken links Prompts: ‘people who have looked at this have also looked at…’ ( such as

with iTunes, Amazon) Place tick boxes on web and forms so can get alerts relevant to topics and by

region Reminder list (to go to website) Repository of information – integrity of information:

2113/30690

o Range of ideas reflectedo Access to that informationo Share back with community

Resource to get ideas manual User friendly – quick to find things. Government websites can be hard to find

and navigate. Website could include grant advice as well as consultation by agency.

Social Media See Launceston City Council’s “Bang the table”

http://yourvoiceyourlaunceston.com.au/ Check out the budget allocator http://launceston.budgetallocator.com/

Social media needs to be managed and used appropriately. People have Facebook friends yet do not talk to those people in the

community. Don’t assume young people are the only people using social media. It’s only one method. Within the community, social media is often used to rally the community (eg.

ABT railway) but it can also be destructive. If FB was a country, it would be the third biggest in the world Impacts highly changeable Mark McCrindle’s research

2213/30690

Evaluation Objective evaluation is critical. Agencies to report Executive Summary of engagement activities. Agencies must have checks and balances for measuring community

engagement, such as:o asking whether the engagement and subsequent action met the needs

of the community;o how did this lead to outcomes, o were community member s satisfied in the level of engagement;o how could it be improved.

Being serious about evaluation – the Australian Evaluation Society http://www.aes.asn.au/

Repeat engagement may not be an indicator of this as people may feel they have to repeatedly express their view without action.

The importance of the community being involved and owning projects from initiation to completion (evaluation)

There could be a genuine online forum to facilitate evaluation on community engagement activities.

Further references Look at Ernesto Model for social enterprises.

2313/30690