Community must be allowed its say
‘What would the people know’?
Whether these actual words are uttered in the boardrooms of our movers and shakers or not, it seems that while we punters are valuable assets when it comes to rates and taxes; our input on issues that directly affect us is less desirable.
A few choice examples include major road projects like the Bruce Highway duplication at Black River, where proposed turning lanes would force traffic to cross the highway.
Planners not only challenged the safety concerns of residents, but disregarded them.
And who can forget the fivestorey social housing block proposed for Aitkenvale that put neighbouring residents through prolonged and unnecessary distress, before planners finally admitted their design was incompatible with the surrounding streetscape?
And then there’s 1300Smiles Stadium that was gifted to Townsville residents.
It somehow became the property of the state government, and is to be demolished for $10m, before a $30m police hub is built there.
This decision was never up for discussion, and not only was presented to the electorate as a fait accompli, we aren’t even allowed to know where the demolition funding is coming from.
And then we had a masterclass in ‘The Perils of Not doing Community Consultation 101’, when residents reacted to NSW outfit CASPA’S plan to house kids with behavioural issues in their neighbourhood.
Not only did the organisation avoid consulting with residents, it doubled down by crowing about its other facilities that have managed to operate under the radar.
So, this week I met with David Donohue, a locally-based specialist consulting in the international aid
sector on best practice in community engagement, to see what could and should have been done.
It turns out there is a model that our governments have signed up to from the International Association for Public Participation (Australasia), or IAP2, which provides training in, and communicates the principles of, public participation and how to achieve effective community and stakeholder engagement.
The process is based on the belief that those who are affected by a decision have a right to be involved in the decision-making process, and includes the promise that the public’s contribution will influence the decision.
While some might challenge whether this process is being adhered to, David says the method is to, “inform, consult, involve, collaborate, and empower”, and if an entity has the statutory power to proceed with a project, to not insult the community by “pretending” to consult; saying, “If a decision has already been made, have the guts to say so.”
Community involvement might not achieve an outcome that pleases everyone, but empowering people rather than blindsiding or dismissing them, is far more likely to facilitate compromise.
And while ‘Have your say’ websites sound great, they’re not a forum or a discussion, they’re a one-sided exercise.
While the person ‘having their say’ might feel their concerns are being considered, how would we know?
What’s to say these comments, suggestions and criticisms are read, let alone acted on?
As maths teachers say, ‘Show us your workings.’
Town Hall meetings should be required for big issues that affect us.
Maybe that’s why Townsville doesn’t have a Town Hall.