Public deliberation on sensitive policy issues

Transcription

1 Public deliberation on sensitive policy issues

2 We re from New Zealand

3 4.2 million people European 68% Māori 15% Pacific peoples 7% Asian 9% Other 1% Tertiary qualifications 40% No qualifications 25%

4 Political system The Treaty of Waitangi (British) Crown and Māori relationship Modified Westminster, no written constitution Unicameral parliament Mix member proportional representation, 1992 State services - New Public Management model,1985

5 Toi te Taiao: the Bioethics Council The creation of an experimental government body

6 Major controversy over GM Royal Commission on Genetic Modification - It is vital that...developments in biotechnology to be based on values we hold in common - a compelling need for a body to address the big picture issues where new forms of technology pose societal questions that go beyond individual choice - Recommended Government establish Toi te Taiao: the Bioethics Council

7 International bioethics context Sensitive issues, too difficult to handle Emergence of bioethics/ethics bodies outside normal legislative & executive process House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology (2000) - the culture of policymaking needs to change so that it becomes normal to bring science and the public into dialogue about new developments at an early stage.

8 Council as an experiment Independent Lay membership, significant Māori presence Sufficient budget Advice directly to senior Government ministers Public dialogue on cultural, ethical and spiritual dimensions of biotechnology

9 Structural issues Not a statutory body - Government doesn t have to respond to recommendations Councillors are part-timers, 5 meeting a year, tend to be issues focused Secretariat located in bureaucracy - Real politics involves experts and key stakeholders, not the public - Institutional policies and procedures (e.g. financial)

10 Who does dialogue in NZ?

11 The Council s experience Information (& consultation) Human embryos for research Predictable result Dialogue Human genes in other organisms Animal-to-human transplants How does a wish list relate to policy? Public framing & deliberation Pre-birth testing (Towards) common ground & policy recommendations

12 Commitments to engagement All the Council s projects have been: - Face-to-face events nationwide - Online - Events for Maori - Events for minorities (Pacifica, Asian) - Recruitment by partnering - Going to where people are online

13 Who gets born? Pre-birth testing

14 Why NIF deliberation? Limitations of previous processes questions by State actors Alerted to US processes through Dialogue, Deliberation and Public Engagement course - Linked engagement to policy Seemed to build on previous processes Principles & step-by-step processes for framing and deliberation

15 Who gets born? process 1. Public framing 56 people, 6 events, 1 Māori, 1 Pacifica 2. Public deliberation people, 18 in-person events, 4 Māori, 1 Pacific Island - Interactive website 3. Independent evaluation 4. Report

16 Interactive website choicebooks started, 69% completed stories & ideas 3. Three deliberation groups - 58 participants (>40% active, 2 groups) - 3 weeks each - moderated - >120,000 words

17 >2 million active users >50% of all NZ server traffic >6000 click through in 2 weeks Getting people to the website

18 Evaluation Acceptance to participants and the wider public (or stakeholders) Good process process conducted in a way likely to result in logical, reasonable, consistent outcomes. Participant satisfaction Outcomes of deliberation

19 Key References Belcher et al (2002) Framing Issues for Public Deliberation: A curriculum guide for workshops, Ohio: The Kettering Foundation. National Issues Forums Institute (2001) For Convenors and Moderators: Organizing for Public Deliberation and Moderating a Forum/Study Circle, Dayton: National Issues Forums Research. Rowe, Marsh & Frewer (2004) Evaluation of a deliberative conference, Science, Technology and Human Values, Vol 29(1), Winter.

20 It s about people The people (i.e. public) take to processes like deliberation, the problem isn t with these people The people (actors) involved in Secretariat are driving and are crucial because although the roles might be possible, without willing/wilful actors nothing changes.

21 Strategies for influence Hard sell doesn t work Work with whoever is interested and keen - some successes

22 Questions What examples can you cite of senior politicians/bureaucrats initiating and/or supporting citizen-centred policy development? What would it take for citizencentred policy development to be taken seriously?

23 Evaluation sample Framing In-person deliberation On-line deliberation Survey responses Response rate 84% 41% 19%

24 Acceptance 100% 80% 60% 40% Framing In-person events On-line groups 20% 0% Representativeness Independence Early involvement & influence Transparency

25 Good process 100% 80% 60% 40% Framing In-person events On-line groups 20% 0% Resource accessibility Task definition Structured decision Cost effectiveness

26 Participant satisfaction Framing In-person deliberation On-line deliberation Expectations met 74% 71% 81% Large majority of participants said they would like to participate in future deliberative processes 50% of online participants joined Council mailing list

27 Outcomes of deliberation Δ thinking about people with diff views Δ thinking about views disagree with On-line deliberation (Active) On-line deliberation (Overall) In-person deliberation Δ views on PBT 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%