NoLink! Sorry, no service for outer Melbourne

Transcription

1 Public Relations Institute of Australia Golden Target Awards State Awards for Excellence 2006 Category 2: Public Affairs NoLink! Sorry, no service for outer Melbourne SUBMITTED BY: DON SHARPLES SOCOM MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

2 Executive Summary Home to a majority of young, financially vulnerable families, the outermost suburbs of Melbourne have been isolated by limited government spending on services and infrastructure. The most significant issue leading to social disadvantage in the Interface Councils is the lack of public transport. The Interface Councils sought $50million annually for the short-term provision of additional bus services. Socom designed a cooperative public affairs campaign that aimed to encourage government spending to provide a minimum level of public transport service to alleviate disadvantage in their communities. The Interface Councils joined successfully with key advocacy groups with similar advocacy goals and effectively engaged the media and key government figures to influence an outcome. The two-year campaign was highly successful, resulting in government spending over $65 million annually toward improving public transport services. (127) 1

3 Situation Analysis The Interface Councils contain some of the fastest growing and geographically spread communities in Australia. Due to low land prices, they are home to young, growing families and other financially vulnerable members of society. The Interface Councils include: Hume Mornington Peninsula Cardinia Melton Nillumbik Wyndham Whittlesea Yarra Ranges The lack of public transport creates a dependency on car travel for Interface communities, who in many cases cannot afford the associated costs. Without increased public transport services, a growing sense of isolation is experienced by these communities. Through engaging with their communities the Interface Councils realised public transport was a significant regional concern. Without the direct ability to resource public transport the Interface Councils required an advocacy campaign to gain the support of the Victorian Government. The campaign was based on influencing Victorian State Budgets by convincing key government figures to make a commitment to funding public transport solutions in the Interface Councils. The campaign was built and conducted over a number of years and was flexible in its design to allow for a changing political climate. (184) 2

4 Goals and Objectives Goal: Influence the Victorian Government to spend an additional $50 million annually to provide a minimum level of public transport service in Interface Councils Objectives: Relationships: Build constructive dialogue with government decision makers and influencers including: o o Bureaucrats from: Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) Department of Treasury and Finance (DTF) Members of parliament: Minister for Transport, Treasurer, members of the expenditure review committee Interface Services Committee members Members of parliament in Interface Council areas Partnerships: Join with two other allied advocate groups to proliferate discussion about public transport Media: Influence 20 stories in local and metropolitan press to convey messages and generate public debate regarding the issue Advocacy: Advocate for additional bus services, extended operating hours, weekend services and increased service frequency (133) 3

5 Metropolitan Public Transport Subsidy per Resident p.a. Research Research was used to determine the extent of the public transport issue facing the Interface Councils and to build a case to support the campaign. Field research determined that: Additional public transport was consistently a community priority across the Interface Councils The Councils community visions and council plans all involve improvements to public transport as a priority and were reviewed to generate a common position for the group. At the campaign s commencement, MPs in Interface Council areas regarded public transport as a low priority This was determined through dialogue with Interface MPs. Interface Councils residents were willing to tell their stories to the media about living in communities devoid of public transport Many local residents volunteered to share their experiences with journalists. Additional desktop research built the case for the campaign, investigating: Government policy which encourages public transport use, but does not support it with appropriate investment Metropolitan Transport Plan (2004) focuses heavily on providing transport solutions to outer Melbourne but lacks commitment to funding and timing for implementation. Government public transport spending patterns which favour inner Melbourne and disadvantage outer Melbourne Chart 1: Public transport subsidy per resident for inner and outer Melbourne $180 $182 $171 $160 Inner $151 $140 $137 $120 $100 $80 $96 $110 $102 $95 $86 $82 $80 Outer $85 $126 $98 $108 $104 $ Year Research conducted by the Bus Association of Victoria was shared with the Interface Councils through our relationship with them. The extent to which the population of the Interface Councils is young and therefore financially vulnerable and growing DSE provides demographic profiling for the Interface Councils. The charts below confirm the young age profiles for the Interface Councils: 4

6 0 to 4 5 to 9 10 to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to yrs+ % of Population Chart 2: Interface Councils have a higher percentage of persons aged 5-17 and a lower percentage of persons aged Chart 3: Population Comparison by Age Structure (1996) 10.0% 9.0% 8.0% 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% Age Group Melbourne Interface The relationship between poor access to public transport and the social disadvantage to communities (312) The campaign drew on research conducted by the Victorian Council of Social Services (VCOSS) as a campaign partner, to understand the social impacts of poor public transport access in outer Melbourne. 5

7 Target Publics There were three groups of target publics with campaign objectives centred on communication with each. 1. State Government Departments and Agencies DOI DTF DSE State Members of Parliament (23 lower house seats) Expenditure Review Committee State Government targets were selected due to their geographic relationship or their direct policy responsibility for public transport. The campaign ultimately sought to influence this group to deliver the campaign goal. 2. Allied peak bodies and advocacy groups Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) Victorian Local Government Association (VLGA) Metropolitan Transport Forum Bus Association of Victoria Public Transport Users Association VCOSS Committee for Melbourne Local community action groups Allies were selected due to the compatibility of their agenda with that of the Nolink campaign, the Public Transport Users Association is a key example. The Interface Councils sought to join with these groups to create a chorus of voices advocating for similar outcomes building pressure on government decision makers. 3. Media Local Leader Newspapers Melbourne Weekly Metropolitan The Age Herald Sun Media targets formed an important part of the campaign. The metropolitan media was used to stimulate public debate on the issue and local media to pressure MPs in specific locations. Due to resourcing restraints of the campaign, newspaper coverage was the focus. (207) 6

8 Communication Strategy Research showed public transport was not high on the political agenda. The Interface Councils had to raise this issue and make it a priority for the Government. To achieve this, the Interface Councils strategy was to: Gain the support of other similarly minded advocacy groups Present the Government with attractive public transport solutions for Interface issues Fuel a debate in the media regarding public transport solutions A decision was made not to attack the Government publicly regarding the issue but to lead with constructive solutions backed by compelling evidence. Negative lobby groups were avoided as they did not fit within our cooperative engagement strategy. Interaction with groups able to support our messages was sought. Key messages 1. The Interface Councils seek a minimum level of public transport service 2. The lack of public transport in Interface areas is a key contributor to social disadvantage 3. The State Government must provide $50 million annually to fund minimum levels of public transport The Interface Councils identified a range of government and public service targets and the stories of local residents were sought to put a human face to the issue. (243) 7

9 Implementation Socom prepared council representatives to brief and correspond with: Key Ministers Local Members of Parliament Senior bureaucrats responsible for public transport policy Targeted allied advocacy groups This was managed through a program of: Regular briefing sessions Annual presentations given by Interface Mayors to their local MPs (Appendix A Part 3) Regular contact with the advisors of the Minister for Transport Annual submissions to parliamentary inquiries and the State Budget (Appendix A Part 2) The program was arranged around the cycle of State Government Budgets which the campaign sought to influence. This allowed the campaign to be implemented in a series of peaks and troughs of activity over a two year period (Appendix A - Part 1). The Interface Councils maintained regular contact with key journalists within the metropolitan press. In the later stages of the campaign, media activity shifted to local press in Interface areas. This shifted political pressure onto local MPs and a Government aware of the city-wide debate. Local case studies provided the human element for media reporting. The campaign was implemented over two years and was designed to be flexible and was reviewed regularly. (195) 8

10 Budget Socom provides communications and advocacy advice to the Interface Councils on a retainer basis. It is estimated that no more than 50% of the annual budget was spent on campaign related activities. The Mayor s, CEOs and officers of the Interface Councils contributed time to the implementation of the strategy. The value of this activity is difficult to measure as there were no allocated funds toward Council s contributions. The estimated cost of the strategy development and implementation was $80,000 over two years. Activity Cost Strategy Development $15,000 Media Liaison $20,000 Materials Production $30,000 Briefings and delegations $10,000 Project Management $5,000 Total $80,000 The main cost of the program was the production of materials such as submissions to the Victorian Budget, presentations and briefing papers. The organisation and attendance of government briefings and liaison with the media were other major expenses. To minimise the cost of the campaign council venues were used at no cost and materials were produced with desktop publishing. Media liaison expenses were kept to a minimum through the development of close relationships with key journalists, negating a need for media releases. (163) 9

11 Results Goal: Influence the Victorian Government to spend an additional $50 million annually to provide a minimum level of public transport service in Interface Councils The Victorian Government committed to funding $65million for improvements to bus services coving Interface Council areas (Appendix A Part 5). Meeting Our Transport Challenges 2006 (MOTC): Improvements included extended operating hours, weekend services and increased service frequency as requested by the Interface Councils and allied advocacy groups. This is confirmed in Budget Paper 3, Service Delivery (p. 309): Service Levels promised in the MOTC policy: (59) 10

12 Evaluation Goal Influence the Victorian Government to spend an additional $50 million annually to provide a minimum level of public transport service in Interface Councils The Interface Councils surpassed the goal of attracting $50 million annually for a minimum level of public transport service to their region in the state budget. The Government s Meeting Our Transport Challenges policy committed $650 million to improve public transport in Interface areas over 10 years. This followed from an announcement in where $40 million over 4 years was provided in 12 Interface Council locations for the provision of new bus services. (100% success) Objectives Relationships: Build a constructive dialogue with key government decision makers and influencers The Interface Councils briefed all their local members of parliament every year. Individual briefings were arranged with the Treasurer, Minister for Local Government and all key public service figures responsible for public transport. The group corresponded with the Premier and all key Ministers responsible for the review of Government expenditure, making detailed submissions to the budget two years running. (100% success) Partnerships: Join with two other allied advocate groups to proliferate the discussion about public transport The Interface Councils formed strong links with 4 peak groups and two local community groups to spread their message including: The Committee for Melbourne Bus Association of Victoria VLGA / MAV Two community groups in Interface Council areas (100% success) Media: Influence 20 stories in local and metropolitan press to convey our messages and generate public debate regarding the issue Over 40 local and metropolitan newspaper stories carried the Interface Councils key messages over an 18 month period (Appendix A Part 4). (100% success) Advocacy: Advocate for additional bus services, extended operating hours, weekend services and increased service frequency The Interface Council s requests were acknowledged with a minimum level of public transport service to be delivered through improvements to bus services, including extended operating hours, Saturday and Sunday service and increased frequencies. (100% success) Due to the funding outcome the Nolink campaign was more successful than initially anticipated possible. The campaign was concluded in early May 2006, due to the success achieved and the next stage of the campaign is now in planning. (273) 11