Community consultation (part one)

“Not a very sexy topic, but very important!”

Both “consultation” and “representation” have a myriad of ways in which the quality can be compromised. As chairperson of the Kensington Association I often “represent” our members in some way, and sometimes I interrogate myself about whether what I say is a personal view or “representing” an organisation perspective; in other words have I consulted adequately, or do I know what members think? Frankly, I often feel I’ve expressed a personal view for two main reasons …

I can’t repeatedly ring around and test the mood for each issue (at some point all “reps” need to show leadership, don’t they).

Yes, I sometimes do (rightly or wrongly) think I know what members will think; although the reality is clearly that not all members will think the same way.

Oh, to be a benevolent dictator! (joking … I think/hope).

I’m writing this as a small-fry rep of a community organisation of volunteers. What about our local political reps who do more big-time stuff – Adam Bandt, Ellen Sandell and Rohan Leppert for example? How do they manage? They’d have little time to “sweat the small stuff”! We wish them well in their juggling of time, ethics and dilemmas – bless their hearts! By the way, please don’t get the idea I’m devaluing the work that we do at the Kensington Association; I could argue that we are the link closest to the “coal-face”, so very important, and we should be able to do our “reps” and “consults” more effectively.

Actually, come to think of it – Kensington Association memberships are coming up for renewal – support us, join us! Hold us to account! There’s strength in numbers!

So, what does quality consultation look like? During the past month or so I’ve been a party to consultation several times. Let me tell you three of four stories that come to mind. The first was a couple of months ago when I sat down with reps from across Melbourne, together with the City of Melbourne CEO, the Lord Mayor Sally Capp, and some other elected councillors; we looked at the bigger picture across the city and prioritised a number of predetermined categories. We were helping to shape the council plans for the next year (and the next four years); other similar gatherings had already taken place across the city. How was that as a consultation? The cynics will say it’s just a “box-ticking exercise”! What do I say? On this I sit on the fence a little. I’m a bit cynical, but I also think that such consultations, together with what we can contribute via “Participate Melbourne” online, are a meaningful and valuable efforts to consult with the community. Certainly, the internet has opened up many ways in which good consultation can happen.

Two or three weeks ago I organised a “consultation” with some City of Melbourne planners. In 2020 the association had asked for further consultation on new “built form controls” that will come into effect later in 2021. For those not up with the jargon, “built form controls” are supposed to guide developers as to what they can and can’t do in relation to the size and shape of building developments. There were three planners and 12 to 15 of us from the association. How was it as a consult? Well, speaking personally (but I do know my feelings were shared by some other members), the three planners were professional and clear in helping us understand some of the ramifications of the proposed new controls. One also felt that they were doing their job sincerely in the best way possible within certain parameters; but was it a consultation? I cannot honestly say it was. It was information sharing, but they were in no position – through no fault of their own – to modify or change the proposed controls. This illustrates two or three ways that consultations lose quality. First, when those doing the consulting have no power to modify what they are sharing. Second, when the information being shared is quite complex and has itself been significantly workshopped beforehand, and third, there is commonly a timeline involved which may preclude further modification of what is being “consulted” about.

Very recently I hooked up in a fairly regular meeting – via Zoom of course – with the Lord Mayor Sally Capp, together with chair-people from other similar community organisations. Sally addressed us briefly, and then we each had about five minutes to raise our local issues of concern. I find these hook-ups are usually quite interesting and useful in order to gain a wider perspective of the diverse community issues, and I’m sure it serves valuable purposes for Sally Capp. She can test the mood of the community and respond to first-hand issues of concern, and she is also seen to be listening and consulting. She does it well – professionally and sincerely one feels. How successful was this as a consultation? For me, having five minutes to voice concerns about issues (between others having their five minutes) feels too shallow and brief to be useful. Also, believe it or not, many of the issues the association is concerned about fall outside the scope of the Lord Mayor’s ability to directly influence – big ticket items like population, traffic controls, and development policy. All of these fall more into the state government basket.

A fourth consultation story, between the Kensington Association and the Assemble developers, deserves more attention, so I’ll postpone it until next month; it’s an interesting story. It illustrates the myriad variables that make consultation so challenging.

See community consultation (part two) … next month! •