Page 77 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 10 February 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
survey the customers.” We used a Time to Talk Canberra survey and we presented two quite different delivery models and asked people their preference. One option was a frequent and faster service that only went to interchanges and major centres and the second option was to continue with the door-to-door service but with less frequent services. The majority of respondents preferred the second option—the existing model. Whilst ACTION had an idea that we thought would work better, provide a better service to people and better meet customer needs, when we tested it the community indicated they preferred the current model, so ACTION stayed with the current model.
It was a successful year, with over 3,000 boardings—a 21 per cent increase on the previous year. The consultation process played an important role in this success. By engaging with the community, asking them how they would like to use the service and adapting the model accordingly, the government was able to develop a responsive service that met the needs and desires of the community.
These two examples are simple surveys. There are, of course, more extensive consultation processes and harder problems to resolve, but I think they underline the fact that consultation can take many forms, and some of it can be very simple. A more complex example would be the development and delivery of the ACT road safety strategy, and in that case the involvement of key stakeholders is central to a collaborative, community-based approach to service development. For example, the NRMA, ACT Motorcycle Riders Association, Pedal Power and other organisations were all part of a working group to develop the motorcycle lane filtering trial and associated public awareness campaign which was launched at the beginning of this month.
The share the road education campaign launched in January is about recognising the rights and responsibilities of cyclists and motorists. Again, it was developed in close consultation with road user groups such as Pedal Power and the NRMA. This involvement is critical for a campaign which aims to speak to both cyclists and motorists to encourage people to be aware of other road users, whether they are on bikes or in cars. It is a pretty contested space in the public discourse, as we know from letters to the editor and talkback radio, and I think this campaign strikes the right balance. This, to a large degree, is testimony to the way the JACS road safety team have engaged with the peak bodies, sought their advice and accommodated the different perspectives of the people they represent.
This kind of engagement is critical for good government. It sets the foundation for good working relationships between government and community so that when new services and facilities are being considered officials know who to talk to in the community to get a community perspective on what is wanted and needed. Engaging with stakeholders early in the planning stages of major projects is the sensible thing to do. It gives a better outcome overall, with better ownership from the people.
I concede that this is a learning process. Decisions must be made about how best to consult on specific projects and at which point it is most constructive to seek input. A case in point was the consultation around the dog exercise areas. Work needed to be done by the directorate to draw together information and maps of the existing exercise areas as well as the various recommendations about potential changes based on policy development and input from the community and other user groups.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video