Expensive and a waste of everyone’s time
meaningfully contribute to answering; like, yes, I would like to compost, or, yes, the construction industry should pay more for landfill.
Before engaging with the public, organisations need to be clear and honest about what they are trying to accomplish.
Good consultation is a crucial part of democracy. But bad consultation is a waste of everyone’s time. It leaves people dissatisfied, feeling unheard, and ultimately erodes trust. And troublingly, it is now baked into all our decision-making institutions.
Parliament’s consultation processes are by-andlarge for show, to pretend people are being heard when the Government has already decided the results it wants.
Select committees, which examine proposed new laws and the work of government departments, are the focal point for engagement.
It’s where the public, civil society, industry, lobbyists and academics make suggestions on legislation. MPs scrutinise the proposals before them and then test them against the opposing and supporting arguments.
But the process is skewed in favour of the Government. Even David Wilson, Clerk of the House of Representatives, noted recently that: ‘‘Select committee scrutiny of the executive has not developed a great deal, and arguably has seen a reduction over time in the robustness of scrutiny activities.’’
By and large, the principal source of advice to MPs is the officials of the department of the minister in charge of the new law.
These same officials have worked long hours to get a bill introduced, and their primary duty is to their minister.
And it is they who write a report for the select committee summarising submissions and making recommendations for amendments.
This is an inherent conflict of interest.
It could be overcome by detaching those officials from this stage of lawmaking. One solution is to properly fund the Parliamentary Library or other independent analysts to provide advice.
It is also wrong for members of the Government to sit on the committees which are scrutinising it.
Opposition MPs could serve as chairs, instead of Government MPs.
More radically, an ACT proposal, currently before Parliament’s Standing Orders [or rules] Committee and supported by the Greens, suggests making membership proportional to the nonexecutive MPs in the House.
It is one way to ensure people are properly heard. Parliament is supposed to be neutral – but at present is favouring the Government of the day.
It’s the very heart of our democracy – and if it is disconnected from the citizens it represents, then we can hardly expect better from lower levels of government.
Letting people vent and feel heard seems like a valid goal, but this is not good policymaking.