Governing the City State - Chief Minister and Treasury Directorate ...

Writing about public discussions of city planning, the Grattan Institute suggests:Those cities that made tough choices and saw them through had early, genuine, sophisticated,and deep public engagement.Residents of cities must be involved in decisions, at a metropolitan and at a local level. In oursample, such involvement appears to have been critical to making tough decisions that werethen actually implemented. This level of engagement is an order of magnitude different fromwhat happens in Australia today.The type of engagement matters a lot. For example, it must start early, before decisions havebeen made; genuinely engage a significant proportion of the population; be focused on realchoices and be clear about their consequences; there should be no promotion of a ‘favouredapproach’; and there must be a commitment to follow through. 72There is, of course, a political balance to be struck, and the ACTPS needs to work with itsMinisters in deciding when and how to pursue participatory decision making:constraints such as time criticality, security, funding availability, conflicts of interest and theprivacy of individuals, as well as the government’s perception of the political climate, need tobe balanced against the importance and benefits of stakeholder engagement. On occasions,the government will simply decide that a matter is not (or no longer) open for debate. 73Public Value Management also involves challenges for the ACTPS requiring new ways oforganising and working:The starting point to the effective engagement of citizens in the policy process is to establish anew approach to public management that speaks the language of the citizen and makes aconcerted attempt to understand and respond to the basic needs of the citizenry. In short, topractice public-value management at every level of the public service so that it becomesembedded in the norms and values of the service. 74Moreover, working in this way requires a new and different skill set and approach to workingcollaboratively not only within the bureaucracy, but with the community. This presentschallenges for the ACTPS, and individual officials, as well as the relationship between theGovernment and the Assembly. Participatory decision making does not sit comfortably withhierarchical authority and accountability lines, nor does it follow linear and predictable paths,which in combination can leave agencies “caught between the conventional bureaucratic andpolitical need for hierarchy and accountability and the need from participatory exercises forflexibility and dynamism”. 75Perhaps most significantly, genuine participatory decision making and co-production ofpublic services and programs by the ACTPS and the people who use the services it providesdepends on strong leadership, trusting relationships, and crucially, a willingness by all partiesincluding the Government to share decision making power. Success is also predicated onclear and shared understandings among all participants of the nature of the process being72 Kelly, J. (2010) Cities: Who Decides. Grattan Institute Report No. 2010-5. Grattan Institute, Melbourne, pp.4,45.73 Management Advisory Committee (2004a) p.97.74 ANZSOG Institute for Governance (2009) p.3.75 Involve (2005) People and Participation – How to put citizens at the heart of decision making. London. Involve. p.26Governing the City State: 64