Good 360
MEDIA, JOBS & RESOURCES FOR THE COMMON GOOD
NEWS  |  General, Opinion, Politics

When Bad Consultation Leads to Bad Policy


Monday, 21st November 2011 at 10:50 am
Staff Reporter
CSI Blog | Governments around Australia need toreally listen to their constituents, and ensure that ‘ ‘consultation’ doesn’t become a decorative process to legitimise a predetermined set of action, says CEO of the Community Council for Australia, David Crosbie.

Monday, 21st November 2011
at 10:50 am
Staff Reporter


2 Comments


FREE SOCIAL
SECTOR NEWS

 Print
When Bad Consultation Leads to Bad Policy
Monday, 21st November 2011 at 10:50 am

Governments around Australia need to really listen to their constituents, and ensure that ‘consultation’ doesn’t become a decorative process to legitimise a predetermined set of actions, says CEO of the Community Council for Australia, David Crosbie.  This article is taken from the CSI Blog.

When Mark Butler was first appointed Minister for Mental Health he asked my advice about what his immediate priorities might be.  My response was that he needed to listen to mental health consumers and carers from around Australia before making any decisions.   Meeting people where they are, hearing their stories and experiences, seeking to make sense of their perspectives, these are the processes that inform good policy.  In his first few months, Minister Butler spent considerable time touring across Australia listening.  He then shifted the debate about responding to mental health issues beyond the existing health system myopia.

We used to call this process ‘consultation’.  It was a way of learning what the issues are and how they impact on people.  It was very much a ground up, tell us what you think approach.  The process did not need large discussion papers to read, options to consider, strategies already on the table.  It was always about listening, and most importantly, it was about showing you had heard.

The benefits of good consultation are well documented.  If you listen to the people who matter, you are more likely to develop effective strategies that both work better and can be sustained over time.

Unfortunately the term consultation has been progressively bastardised by an ongoing series of predetermined, closed option, pseudo-neo-quasi engagement strategies designed almost exclusively to satisfy a symbolic process requirement.  This approach adopts a simple method: consult – then do exactly what you were going to do before you consulted with one or two minor concessions.  It is a little like putting a condom on after sex so that you can say you used one.

It is important to point out that I am not opposed to predetermined consultation – it has its place.  For instance, as a parent I find the predetermined consultation quite a useful strategy because if you play it right the child thinks what you are doing – and what you were always going to do – is really their idea.

The problem is when predetermined consultation is paraded as genuine consultation.  Unfortunately, this masquerade has become the prime time ‘consultation’ show in town.

For most people working in the Not for Profit sector, the term consultation now carries more negative connotations than your average swear word.  It is seen as creating a lot of new work, but providing a very limited return.

The Federal Government Office of Best Practice Regulation has published a set of Consultation Principles that include the requirements for continuity; targeting; timeliness; accessibility; transparency; consistency and flexibility; evaluation and review.

Of course there is no evaluation or review of how these consultation principles are being implemented.  In practice they exist as words only, and without any required application or monitoring, they remain largely decorative.

The Commonwealth Ombudsman drew upon their experience of over 39,000 complaints to make five key recommendations about how governments could improve service delivery.  Number three in these recommendations was to ‘Consult with key stakeholder groups before implementation, not afterwards.’

Under the National Compact, the Federal government and the Not for Profit sector committed to work together to change the way consultations are conducted, to make them more respectful and to create new ways of engaging.  There is still a lot of work to do here, but the government has at least started to engage with Not for Profits through the National Compact website.

The bottom line is that for as long as we continue to develop policy as a reaction to perceived problems with very little real analysis or active engagement of those involved, we will continue to develop very poor policies that often break down once implemented.

There are many forms of citizen engagement emerging around the world, some offering real promise in terms of improved effectiveness and sustainability of (government) programs and services.  These strategies are not just about using new technologies or communications.  A recent paper by Brenton Holmes from the Parliamentary Library highlighted these trends in the following terms:

‘The theory and practice of public administration is increasingly concerned with placing the citizen at the centre of policymakers’ considerations, not just as target, but also as agent. … Concepts such ‘co-creation’ and ‘co-production’ have emerged to describe this systematic pursuit of sustained collaboration between government agencies, non-government organisations, communities and individual citizens.’

All governments in Australia would do well to examine the way they currently approach consultation and consider adopting a fundamental principle:  consultation should inform major policy commitments and implementation strategies, and not become a decorative process to legitimise a predetermined set of actions.

If we want better government, better policies, better programs and services, we need to move beyond the technocrat knows best approach and engage in consultation that moves beyond the standard tin ear tick the box process.

David Crosbie is CEO of the Community Council for Australia, an independent member-based organisation dedicated to building flourishing communities primarily by enhancing the extraordinary work of the Not for Profit sector in Australia.

The Centre for Social Impact (CSI) at the University of New South Wales brings together the business, government, philanthropic and third (Not for Profit) sectors, in a collaborative effort to build community capacity and facilitate social innovation.

The CSI blog aims to provide a forum for discussion and debate on topics related to social impact. The blog features regular posts by CSI staff, as well as pieces by guest bloggers. Selected blog posts are re-published by Pro Bono Australia News – to visit the CSI blog visit www.csi.edu.au/site/Home/Blog.aspx



FEATURED SUPPLIERS


Helping the helpers fund their mission…...

FrontStream Pty Ltd (FrontStream AsiaPacific)

...


Brennan IT helps not-for-profit (NFP) organisations drive gr...

Brennan IT

HLB Mann Judd is a specialist Accounting and Advisory firm t...

HLB Mann Judd

More Suppliers

Get more stories like this

FREE SOCIAL
SECTOR NEWS

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

Concerns Raised Over New ACNC Board Appointments

Luke Michael

Monday, 20th November 2017 at 2:28 pm

New Same-Sex Marriage Bill Looks to Protect Faith-Based Charities

Luke Michael

Monday, 13th November 2017 at 5:25 pm

Nightmares and Good Policy

David Crosbie

Thursday, 9th November 2017 at 8:29 am

Fears For International Philanthropy Rise as Foreign Donations Bill Looms

Wendy Williams

Monday, 6th November 2017 at 5:27 pm

POPULAR

Red Cross Moves to Wage-Based Fundraising Model

Lina Caneva

Thursday, 16th November 2017 at 8:30 am

Disability Advocacy Group Fights to Restore State Funding

Luke Michael

Thursday, 9th November 2017 at 8:37 am

New Same-Sex Marriage Bill Looks to Protect Faith-Based Charities

Luke Michael

Monday, 13th November 2017 at 5:25 pm

Concerns Raised Over New ACNC Board Appointments

Luke Michael

Monday, 20th November 2017 at 2:28 pm

2 Comments

  • Calochilus Calochilus says:

    Butler’s current masquerade as the concerned benefactor in the development of the Clinical Practice Points for ADHD leaves one to imagine that the real issue is trimming the Mental Health budget to the bone so that Swan’s Surplus might have a chance of being realised. Bugger the committed professionals who slogged for two years to bring into existence a comprehensive document, the Draft Guidelines for ADHD and bugger good science. Bugger the people who are affected by the double whammy of denial of their ADHD problems and by denial of access to the services by which these problems may be addressed Let’s just wipe the slate clean with a Clayton’s document which fails to address most of the real issues.
    These include, among others:
    The pejorative associations attached to the diagnosis by years of tabloid journalistic exploitation
    The demonisation of stimulant medications, which if viewed objectively have a better track record than painkillers.
    The appalling failure to understand the impact of a monolithic education system on square pegs in round holes.
    The failure to extend Medicare rebates to objective diagnostic strategies utilised by Psychologists.
    The reduction in Medicare rebates for Psychologist’s treatments in the face of demonisation of medications. This is a rock-and-a-hard-place scenario, buggered if you do and buggered if you don’t.
    The shortage of sympathetic skilled clinicians in all associated fields. Do it by your bootstraps, fellas. The level of denial of the objective reality of ADHD exhibited by a goodly number of the professionals allegedly with qualifications to treat the problem, is mind boggling.

  • Don D'Cruz Don D'Cruz says:

    This article is just a load of rubbish.

Write a Reply or Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Good 360
pba inverse logo
Subscribe Twitter Facebook

The social sector's most essential news coverage. Delivered free to your inbox every Tuesday and Thursday morning.

You have Successfully Subscribed!