28 February 2006
GREATER CLARITY NEEDED WHEN GOVERNMENT AGENCIES INVOLVE THE COMMUNITY
IN THEIR DECISION-MAKING, SAYS AUDITOR GENERAL
WA government agencies’ efforts to develop effective public participation
strategies, though in a few cases being recognised internationally as leading
edge, have considerable scope for improvement.
A report from Acting Auditor General Colin Murphy tabled in Parliament today
has found that whilst there are pockets of excellent practice in Western Australia,
these tend to be isolated examples.
In an environment of relatively low confidence in public institutions, it
was particularly important that agencies were clear on why they are involving
the community, that they make clear how community involvement will influence
agency decisions, and follow through on the agreed approach, states Mr Murphy
in his overview to the report.
“Demonstrating that their efforts to involve the community are genuine
is an important means of building trust,” he says.
The report examined the nature and extent of public participation conducted
by state government agencies, and involved a detailed review of seven examples
of recent public participation conducted by agencies and a broad overview of
public participation activity across government in 2005-06.
Primarily, it finds that agencies need to be clearer about why they are involving
the public (including the level of involvement they want the public to have),
be more accountable for the time and resources spent in involving the public,
and keep better records of the costs and benefits of public participation activities.
Mr Murphy’s findings included:
- Most public participation involves informing and obtaining feedback.
Examination of a large sample of public participation by government agencies
in 2005-06, indicates that most public participation in WA aims to inform
or obtain feedback on analysis, alternatives, or decisions – none
of the 59 public participation projects registered with the Office of Citizens
and Civics offered participants more than the opportunity to provide feedback
on pre-existing analysis, alternatives, and/or decisions.
- Agencies are not
always clear about why they are using public participation.
The examination observed an absence of clear objectives, including lack of
evident agreement between decision-makers about the reasons for involving
the public, with little groundwork to establish and agree the level of influence
participants will have over a decision. It also found cases where it was
not clear what action agencies have taken as a result of the public participation.
- Agencies
typically use traditional methods to identify participants and need to adopt
strategies to obtain the views of people who tend not to be involved in public
discussion but who may be affected by a decision.
- Record keeping
was generally poor, and in the absence of good records:
- Some agencies
could not demonstrate that the public participation represented the views
of the community or that resulting decisions were based on community views.
- Agencies have not retained corporate knowledge about what worked
and what did not.
- Agencies do not know the full cost of public participation activities.
In a first in the reporting of the results of Auditor General’s audits
and examinations in WA, under the new Auditor General Act proclaimed on 1st
February this year, seven agencies were given the opportunity to formally respond
to Mr Murphy’s findings and recommendations and have these published
in his report.
All agencies’ responses were positive, agreeing with the findings and
indicating it was likely recommendations would be acted upon by these agencies
in the future where relevant.
Ends/.
Media Contact: Peter Villiers,
Manager Reporting and Communications
Tel: (08) 9222 7558. Mobile:
0417 936 171 Fax: (08) 9322 5664
4th Floor Dumas House 2 Havelock
Street West Perth
|
