OUTCOMES: Over 80% of 21 identified issues
on the agenda resolved and all stakeholders
were in agreement.
Situation The Government had called for submissions on the Planning, Environment and Development Assessment Bill – Exposure Draft for Public Comment. Submissions were received up until 25 August 1995 and were to be used to guide further refinements and improvements and some rethinking, if necessary, before the Bill was finalised. Stakeholders who had lodged submissions had agreed the year before that a plenary workshop would be useful to clarify and explore areas where parties had a fundamental different of views and determine whether those disagreements could be resolved before a report on the results of the consultation were provided back to the government. Stakeholders agreed to participate in a plenary workshop on PEDA on 16 and 19 February, 1996 using the Assisted Dispute Resolution Process - negotiated rulemaking techniques.
Workshop The Queensland Department of Local Government and Planning convened a Planning Environment and Development Assessment Workshop on 16 and 19 February 1996 facilitated by John Haydon. John Haydon conducted a two day plenary workshop with key stakeholders involved in the development of the then Planning, Environment and Development Assessment (PEDA) Bill. The purpose of the workshop was to facilitate discussion and, where possible, develop consensus amongst key stakeholders about matters raised in the written submissions to the Exposure Draft of the PEDA Bill (after further revision to become the Integrated Planning Act 1997). This would then assist the Department to report comprehensively to the responsible Minister on the outcomes of the consultation program. The Government indicated that it would be looking to refine the provisions of the Bill and redraft as necessary in the light of comments received and submissions made on the Bill. It was imperative that the stakeholders establish common ground on a number of key issues. The Stakeholders involved:
1. Queensland Farmers Federation (QFF)
2. Urban Design Institute of Australia (UDIA)
3. Local Government Association of Queensland (LGAQ)
4. Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA), now the Property Council of Australia
5. Queensland Environmental Law Association (QELA)
6. Brisbane City Council (BCC)
7. Environmental Defenders Office (EDO)
8. Royal Australian Planning Institute (RAPI), now the Planning Institute of Australia
9. Queensland Conservation Council (QCC)
10. Queensland Confederation of Industry (QCI)
11. Department of Housing and Local Government and Planning (DHLGP), now Department of Local Government and Planning (DLGP) (present in a listening role only).
Outcomes Over 80% of the 21 identified issues on the agenda were resolved and all stakeholders were in agreement. Of the remaining 20% common ground had been identified. "…Your chairmanship at the workshop was masterful. … In all fairness John, I believe the Workshop was more useful than I expected. A more balanced approach is likely to be adopted in drafting the final Bill knowing that it is first and foremost a piece of planning legislation and not a "second go" for everything that others failed to slip into the EPA, Coastal Protection Act, Nature Conservation Act etc etc". "Lastly let me just say I enjoyed the last two days, because you made them fun. There is no rule that says good public policy formulation should be dull and boring – and even if there is I’m glad you have never been bound by it." Geoffry Booth, Director, Planning Australia, 1996 From this experience the scope and the agenda of what can be achieved using ADR in Queensland has widened. The ability to use a third party neutral to achieve good planning outcomes should now be recognised as a valid approach. Public consultation is a negotiation process. The making of written submissions and/or comments should be considered as only part of the process. Negotiated Rulemaking as developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) allows for a meaningful additional process to be added. The facilitation by a third party neutral person is an essential element in the face-to-face negotiations amongst stakeholders. The Caloundra City Council case study is another public consultation/ADR example for plan making. Method Used It was suggested by John Haydon and agreed to by DHLGP that Negotiated Rulemaking techniques would be the most effective form of ADR to use in this instance. Negotiated Rulemaking: Participants in the Workshop were drawn from the principal stakeholders. They were the "negotiators"; The DHGLP were there to observe the process and to take away the results. The participatory parts of the process came from the stakeholders; The Program Outline for the Workshop set out the areas of dispute, which have been identified as requiring further negotiation between the principal stakeholders. The outcomes being sought can be summarised as: a) seeking a negotiated and agreed position relevant to the items for discussions; b) if agreement cannot be reached, than a better understanding of the conflicting views, or a narrowing of the areas of conflict and/or a position whereby the stakeholders agree to disagree. This was a public process so comments made by the stakeholders were considered to be the position held by the stakeholder organisation. If individual comments are to be made, then that was to be clearly stated by the person speaking. For the Workshop to be successful all the participants needed to work positively towards achieving a satisfactory outcome. Were points can be conceded so that there is a uniform base line which can be taken forward in any legislative program, then so much the better. Respecting opposing points of view and seeing what can be done about seeking out common ground were important steps in the process. Any solutions, which can come from the negotiation sessions, were advisory only. If there are a number of options, then alternatives were recommended.
