Home > The Values and relations with the Public > Public consultation and communication

PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND COMMUNICATION

Evidence from the State of the Service surveys and the detailed evidence collected from agencies through the comparison of customer survey data indicate a growing focus on understanding and responding to the views of clients in order to improve service delivery. This focus is also being extended more broadly, through an emphasis on consulting relevant stakeholder groups and citizens more generally in relation to both program delivery and the development of government policy. This section extends earlier analysis on agencies’ use of consultation mechanisms from clients and service delivery to consultation with key stakeholders on a broad range of government activity.

Government regulators in all APS departments and agencies are required to confer with the Office of Regulatory Review on the requirement for a regulation impact statement (RIS) for proposals of a regulatory nature. Consultation on a proposal and alternative options should occur when a course of regulatory action is being considered and should occur as widely as possible but at the least, should include those most likely to be affected by the regulatory action. This report does not attempt to summarise consultation as part of the RIS process but to assess in general terms the extent of the consultation occurring in the APS more broadly.

The MAC report, Connecting Government put a strong emphasis on the importance of public consultation. It argued that the very nature of Australia’s participatory democracy means that meeting the APS’s responsibilities for comprehensive policy advising and effective implementation of government policies and programs is a two way exercise, which requires the APS to have increasingly sophisticated professional skills and techniques in communication and consultation.²⁴ The MAC report also emphasised that APS agencies need to recognise that the engagement of people and organisations is an increasing feature of whole of government work.

Community engagement can take many forms. As previously discussed, surveys and market research can provide useful data; however, more formal consultation through open processes, web-based interactions, advisory bodies, consultative committees, taskforces and hired consultants permits informed participation while not endangering the Government’s obligation to make decisions on behalf of all Australians.

The 2004 agency survey included a new question that explored the extent to which agencies are conducting formal consultations on the development of government policy and program delivery. Agencies were asked how often they consulted with the following groups: non-government agencies, industry stakeholders, tertiary education and research groups, agencies from State/Territory and/or local governments, unions and members of the public about both government policy and program delivery. For each option, agencies could respond usually, sometimes, no, or not applicable.

The survey results show that consultation in the making of policy and program decisions is widespread among APS agencies. Seventy per cent of agencies usually or sometimes consulted with one or more of the specified groups about government policy, and 74% of these agencies consulted five or more groups. Program delivery appears to trigger greater consultation than policy development, with 85% of responding agencies indicating that they usually or sometimes consult one or more of the specified groups on this issue, and 73% of responding agencies consulting five or more groups.

Twenty-six per cent of responding agencies indicated that formal consultation in relation to the development of government policy with any of the identified groups was not applicable to their agency. In relation to program delivery only 14% of agencies indicated that consultation was not applicable. The reasons why agencies identified that consultation was not applicable, were not explored in the 2004 agency survey but could include the particular matter being addressed may not have clearly identifiable stakeholders, or that it required high level confidentiality in its development.

Only three per cent of responding agencies indicated that they did not consult any of the specified groups in regard to the development of government policy even though the question was applicable to them, and only one per cent of agencies gave a similar answer in regard to program delivery.

The key group consulted by relevant agencies for both the development of government policy and the delivery of government programs was ‘industry stakeholders’ with 78% and 77% respectively of relevant agencies usually engaging this group in formal consultation (see Table 4.1). The percentage of relevant agencies consulting with ‘industry stakeholders’ increases to 92% and 96% respectively when those agencies that sometimes use this group are also included.

‘State/Territory government organisations’, ‘tertiary education and research groups’ and ‘non-government organisations’ are the next major groups usually consulted, with approximately half of relevant agencies engaging with them on the development of government policy. This proportion increases when program delivery is at issue: ‘State/Territory governments’ are usually consulted by two-thirds of relevant agencies and ‘nongovernment organisations’ are usually consulted by 58% of relevant agencies.

‘Members of the public’ are usually consulted by 42% of relevant agencies in relation to program delivery; this percentage increases to 79% when those agencies that sometimes consult this group are included. The percentage of relevant agencies usually consulting the public about the development of government policy is lower at 31% and rises to only 66% when those agencies that sometimes consult this group are included.

Table 4.1: Groups usually/sometimes formally consulted by relevant agencies in 2003—04

Source: Agency survey

Note: The rounding of survey results means that the estimates set out in the table may not always exactly match the estimates in the discussion.

Fourteen per cent of relevant agencies indicated that they usually consulted groups other than those specified in the survey on the development of government policy and 21% of relevant agencies consulted groups other than those specified about program delivery. These groups included international governments, other APS agencies, legal practitioners, and consultative and professional bodies.

There is some variation due to agency size in relation to usual consultation on the development of government policy. Of relevant agencies, large agencies have the highest representation of consultation with ‘industry stakeholders’ (81%), yet a lower representation in nearly all other categories. Medium agencies have the lowest level of consultation with ‘non-government organisations’ (44%) and small agencies the lowest level of consultation with ‘unions’ (18%).

Agency size also appears to have some impact in relation to the usual level of consultation undertaken in regard to program delivery. Of relevant agencies, medium agencies have a higher consultation rate than small and large agencies across all categories. Small agencies have the lowest consultation rate for ‘unions’ (19%) and ‘local governments’ (28%). Large agencies have the lowest consultation rate with ‘tertiary education and research groups’ (28%).

Overall, the agency survey results suggest a high degree of consultation occurring among large agencies with a wide variety of groups.

There appears to be potential for some agencies to increase the amount of consultation occurring, particularly with members of the public. One means of obtaining the general public’s view on policy and program delivery issues is through the use of representative surveys in addition to surveys of the agencies direct clients. Two agencies provided the APS Commission with details of such surveys in the context of the Commission’s project on agency client surveys measuring the effectiveness of service delivery. Centrelink and the ATO both survey the general public to measure how the general Australian community perceives their agency, reflecting the central service delivery role of each agency and its likely impact on all citizens at some point in their lives. Surveying the Australian community provides information that these agencies can use to improve their standing and performance within the community. ATO is looking to build community understanding of the tax system and Centrelink to build community knowledge and understanding of its role in life events and how it can assist members of the public.

There are considerable benefits from agencies taking a broader approach to consultation, by identifying areas where greater consultation and communication would be appropriate and developing effective processes to ensure that consultation and communication occurs. There may be, for example, areas where agencies could be more proactive in community consultation.

Consultation and the use of market research, does require some care, however, to ensure it is appropriately used to support informed decision-making in the public interest. Agencies need to retain the capacity for dispassionate advice, and market research needs to demonstrably relate to program objectives and provide value for money.

24 MAC, op. cit.