A submission by the Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs Council Tas, Inc. (ATDC)

Transcription

1 Submission A Tasmanian Government Framework for Community Engagement A submission by the Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs Council Tas, Inc. (ATDC) April

2 Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs Council Tas, Inc. Phone: PO Box 4702 Bathurst Street Post Office Hobart, TAS Contact: Jann Smith, Chief Executive Officer Prepared by: Ella Haddad, Policy and Research Officer 2

3 Introduction The ATDC commends the Department for its commitment to establishing a framework for better government engagement and supports such a framework. We welcome the opportunity to submit feedback on the consultation paper. Community engagement and consultation is a vital component of delivering good government. Without mechanisms that allow community members to have real and tangible input into government decisions that affect their lives, governments inevitably lose sight of the critical needs of the community. This leads to communities and individuals developing a sense of powerlessness and cynicism about government, government decisions and about future efforts to consult or engage. In a small community like Tasmania, we are well placed to ensure robust processes for engagement are put in place and followed consistently. Our size means we have enormous opportunity and potential to be nation and world leading in the way we conduct community engagement and consultation. This consultation process gives us as a state an opportunity to learn from our past successes as well as mistakes so we can develop a truly best practice framework for community engagement in Tasmania. Organisation s role and scope The Alcohol, Tobacco and other Drugs Council Tas Inc (ATDC) is the peak body representing the interests of community sector organisations that provide services to people with substance misuse issues in Tasmania. We are a membership based, independent, not-forprofit and incorporated organisation. The ATDC is the key body advocating for adequate systemic support and funding for the delivery of evidence based alcohol, tobacco and other drug (ATOD) initiatives. We support workforce development through training, policy and development projects with, and on behalf of the sector. We represent a broad range of service providers and individuals working in prevention, promotion, early intervention, treatment, case management, research and harm reduction. As a community sector peak body, we play a role in assisting the Tasmanian Government achieve its aims of preventing and reducing harms associated with the use of alcohol, tobacco and other drugs in the Tasmanian community. 3

4 We represent the interests of our broad membership by taking part in a number of Tasmanian Government and Government/Sector steering committees, working parties and meetings. These include: The Alcohol Advisory Group ATOD Steering Committee Comorbidity Steering Committee Court Mandated Drug Diversion Working Group The HIV and Hepatitis Working Group The Interagency Working Group on Drugs The Peaks Network and Government Strategic Forum Prevention Promotion and Early Intervention Reference Group The State-wide Youth Collaborative Group (SYC) The Tobacco Coalition We also take part in a number of outside of government committees and groups, all of which submit to government on relevant issues as appropriate. This is another avenue for us as an organisation to be involved with decisions made by Government. These committees include: Smoke Free Tasmania The Social Determinants of Health Advocacy Network Southern Interagency Collaboration Meeting The Tasmanian Peaks Network The Tasmanian Social Policy Council Tasmanian Suicide Prevention Network The ATDC also takes part in a number of government led consultation workshops as and when they arise, and makes submissions to government reviews and inquiries such as this one. In this regard the ATDC is well placed to provide significant and regular feedback to Government on a range of issues affecting the ATOD community sector. However we recognise the hope that this framework will be about much more than seeking stakeholder feedback from peak bodies and other interest groups. While we recognise there are often opportunities put forward for community to engage with government, there are often problems with the way these opportunities are presented and executed. For example: 1. Timeliness. It is often the case that government consultation periods are too short to allow for genuine consultation from the community. Contributions from peak bodies such as the ATDC need to be representative of the members we represent. This means for us to provide accurate and useful feedback to a consultation process, 4

5 sufficient time needs to be allowed for us to consult our members, and for our members to in turn consult their client base as appropriate. When consultation processes do not allow for adequate time, they inevitably come across as tokenistic and eventually the sector and community lose faith in the consultation process and fail to take future efforts to consult seriously. 2. Consultation fatigue. Communities feel over consulted by government and other interest groups when they are asked for input on the same or similar issues several times in quick succession or when they are asked for the same information by multiple departments or groups. This can relate to a particular regional area or to a particular service providing sector of the community. Better coordination of which arms of government are consulting with which individuals, locations and stakeholders would significantly alleviate this fatigue. For example: government departments could liaise so that information on several issues could be gathered at the same time; has the information already been gathered by someone else? Consult with other departments and with community sector bodies who may already have sought similar information which could be shared. 3. Feedback and evaluation. Even when consultation processes do go well, they often fall away and fail to deliver when it comes to feedback and evaluation. When departments are not able to remain in communication with communities and stakeholders about what (if anything) has been done with the feedback provided, communities feel justifiably disappointed and cynical. This, coupled with the over consultation described above leads to significant cynicism and lack of engagement which inevitably has a negative impact on future efforts to consult. The ATDC notes the levels of community engagement listed in the consultation paper, being: Inform, Consult, Involve, Collaborate and Empower. It is our view that the overwhelming majority of government consultation efforts fall into the Inform category, with a lesser amount falling into the Consult category. There are also times where government may feel they are operating in the Consult category but in reality the activity is in fact a marketing or advertising exercise which would really fall into the Inform category of engagement. For community engagement to be effective and meaningful, communities need to feel their ideas and needs are being listened to, taken into account and acted upon. Further, when 5

6 they can t be included and acted upon, that adequate feedback and explanation as to what has or has not been taken into account is given. Government and community a two way street The plan for the framework as it reads from the consultation paper looks like it will be a tool for government departments to use to seek feedback on decisions, including decisions which may have already been reached. There is a significant difference between seeking feedback on decisions which have been made already or around which there is little if any flexibility, and seeking genuine community input into decisions before they are made. Significant culture change is required within government in order that consultation with community becomes more than a formality or a box which needs to be ticked to satisfy an administrative process. In developing the framework, government must provide more than a tool for government, but must also seek to alter some of the entrenched attitudes towards the idea of community engagement in decision making. It is imperative that the final product be straight-forward, easy to use and understand and that it respects the importance of both government and community service organisations as well as their interdependence. The Framework must provide simple to use tools for all government departments to ensure community engagement is undertaken comprehensively and in a meaningful and genuine way. The aim should not only be to facilitate better engagement, but also to ensure better government, and in the long term a community better equipped to engage. An engagement literate community, able to contribute articulately to government engagement mechanisms will lead inevitably to better policy which meets the needs of the community. 6

7 Other relevant strategies The Partnership Agreement between the DHHS, DPAC and the Community Sector 1 must have a bearing on the Framework for Community Engagement. The Partnership Agreement was formed following many years of considered input by Government and community sector peak bodies it outlines valuable shared values which are to be upheld when working together: A commitment to honest and responsible relationships Leadership Community participation and engagement Valuing the distinct and complimentary roles of each party Recognising sector diversity Recognising the interests of ATSI people Acknowledging cultural diversity Supporting equality of opportunity Acting from mutual respect. Also relevant to the development of a Tasmanian framework for community engagement is the recently released Commonwealth publication Engaging today for a better tomorrow: Code of Best Practice for Engagement with the not-for-profit sector. 2 The Code aims to achieve a more consistent level of engagement and partnership with the sector through consultation. It identifies key principles of engagement. These include continuity: that engagement should start early in the policy development process and be ongoing. Authenticity: that the consultation processes must give legitimate opportunities for the sector to participate and have influence on policy. Capacity: that resources available to the sector must be taken into consideration. Timeliness: that stakeholders should be given sufficient time to provide considered responses. Feedback: that a summary of input should be available to demonstrate the impact the input has had on a policy, Evaluation and Review. The ATDC also encourages government to inform themselves of work already done in this area including useful toolkits currently available. Existing departments may already have successful engagement techniques which could be incorporated into a new overarching toolkit, rather than existing successful techniques being lost sight of. Similarly, there are already several community sector tools available and in current use including the Top Ten Tips for consulting with young people produced by the Youth Network of Tasmania (YNOT) 1 Partnership Agreement between DHHS, DPAC and the Community Sector Tasmania A joint initiative of the Tasmanian Government and the Tasmanian Community Sector Peaks Network. 2 Engaging today for a better tomorrow: Code of Best Practice for Engagement with the not-for-profit sector. Office of the Not-for-Profit-Sector, Canberra,

8 and the State-wide Youth Collaborative Group (SYC) 3. It would be a shame to lose sight of existing successful engagement techniques and tools, as to do so would create unnecessary work in reinventing the wheel. What does a community that is truly engaged look like? This contribution will conclude by addressing the question raised at the start of the DPAC Consultation Paper what does a community that is truly engaged look like? In our view, a truly engaged community is one that knows that their ideas and views are listened to and acted upon when governments make decisions that affect their lives. An engaged community is one where voices are heard and where community and individuals have a clear, articulate voice which is taken seriously. Where governments don t only consult on decisions which are already made, or are so close to being made that there is little or no flexibility for change. Evidence shows that current consultation processes are very good at hearing: the articulate, the angry, already engaged people, and views from issue specific interest and lobby groups. This framework must include mechanisms to engage those who don t have a voice. Community members who justifiably have a significant interest or stake in an issue but may be falling through the cracks as they are not either represented by a lobby or interest group, or they are not otherwise engaging, for whatever reasons. We understand there are times where government won t be able to consult or where it is not possible to include the input provided by the community into a final decision. However having in place successful engagement techniques means that when this situation arises, government is well placed to explain to communities what if any of their input was incorporated in a decision, and to give explanations as to why some may not have been. In time, this two way communication will lead to increased trust and respect for government, as the community begins to feel more ownership over government decisions affecting their lives. By promoting an engagement literate, active and eager to contribute community, Government will begin to see increasingly improving input which will in turn lead to better, more cohesive, acceptable and productive decisions by government. 3 Available at 8