Independent Review Of Community Surveys

Frank Wilkie25:32

My question therefore very simply is not improve community confidence in the consultation process if Council conducted surveys and opinion polls through an appropriately qualified independent third-party? Thank

Frank Wilkie124:45

That's unanimous. Councillor Wilson? That's unanimous. The motion is carried. Now up to 10.2, independent review of community service surveys. Councillor Phillips, would you like to make your motion?

Jessica Phillips124:58

Thank you. I have a notified motion this morning, which I'll read. My recommendation for independent review of community surveys that Council requires community engagement surveys that are developed to support consultation and/or decision-making for significant Council projects undergo an independent review by a suitably qualified third party prior to release to ensure methodology methodological integrity neutrality of framing and confidence in the reliability of the data used to inform Council decision-making and be requests the CEO to provide a report back to Council for further consideration and or decision that explores the potential opportunities and cost costs in line with council's Standing Orders.

Brian Stockwell133:02

The amendment deletes the A and rewords B to request the CEO to provide a report back to Council for further consideration that explores the potential opportunities, implications and costs of obtaining independent review of surveys to be used as part of the community on, oh no, of the community engagement on significant Council projects and plans.

Frank Wilkie169:31

I will speak to the motion. I am relieved to see in there that it involves significant Council projects only, but as Councillor Stockwell said, there is some. Vaguely around what that actually means. So as long as we're able to have a discussion around what constitutes a significant project, that will make it in line with what we understand is happening already. Planning scheme the amendments, for example, Noosaville use of a foreshore master plan. I did have concerns about something about the irony of emotions. Motion that seeks to have greater collaboration and engagement come through a notified motion process which doesn't necessarily involve Councillors. Like a lot of these issues that we've seen come through as notified motions can be the subject of Councillor discussion forums where we have a collaborative understanding of what a Councillor would like to achieve and reports can be brought to the organisation which gives the Councillors when it comes to making a decision all the background data and costs involved rather than requiring Councillors to make that decision without that information before them. I note that part B there says that CEO will provide a report back to Council that mentions the costs and potential opportunities. In line with Councillors Standing Orders and perhaps that's where the implications can also be outlined for Councillors to consider. So, although I have some misgivings. Agree with the principle that significant surveys ought to be, have the independent third party analysis. I will support this notified motion hope but I would like to can take a collaborative approach down about what they're hoping to see and achieve, which is in line with what we're trying to achieve with our community engagement, through our Councillor discussion forum. It's got Councillor-like monitoring discussions. We'll just talk. We'll talk when we're here together. That way we can all be on the same page and understand and help what we're trying to achieve and have a more consensus view on outcomes, which are often good for the betterment of the community, and that's what we're all here for. So I will support. Next motion.

Very much Mr Spencer for your question. I appreciate it. Council has committed to meaningful engagement that is reflective of a broader community and its practices are underpinned by the International Association of Public Participation by IAP2. Globally recognised for its best practice approach to community engagement. Council also has a community engagement framework to provide the context on how to plan, design and implement the community engagement process for identified projects, strategies and decision-making processes. Surveys are one part of the conversation. With our community as we adopt an integrated approach to community engagement, which is consistent with best practice. There are a range of options offered, including face-to engagement and the opportunity to provide written submissions. Council staff make an operational decision to design, develop and test community engagement surveys in-house, and these are developed by highly skilled engagement professionals. The cost to engage an independent third party to provide the service can be significant. Some of the complex or high community engagement projects, such as the Noosaville Foreshore Infrastructure Masterplan, Pomona Place Plan, and the Housing Strategy, we have partnered with specialist consultants to assist with survey design and analysis of the data. In line with our community engagement framework, we endeavour to close the loop for the community by reporting back what we've heard and how it has influenced council's decision-making. We acknowledge that there has been some delays in providing reports for some of our recent engagement projects. We continually review and investigate. Methods to enhance their engagement and encourage members of the community to sign up and be part of our newly formed community engagement feedback panel for future projects.

Brian Stockwell133:40

I want to start by saying I support the objective that Councillor Phillips has outlined in her supporting information. Particularly with respect that what she is attempting in this motion is to support transparent and defensible decision making, align Council practice with reconnoitred standards in research, social science and community consultation, and that it reflects Noosa Council's commitment to high quality engagement and evidence based policy. It's therefore unfortunate that it was raised as a notice of motion without any high quality engagement, nor significant evidence base. We've heard the justification is that there has been some issues raised by the community and I hear them. We heard some this morning. We heard that it's leading to lower participation rates, which, if we get the statistics, you'll find that we're probably one of the governments in Australia in terms of participation on significant projects and the fact that we do get statistically valid responses to surveys suggests that participation isn't being affected. We've got massive participation. We've got very high expectations in the community. We've got people in our community who do know a lot about surveying. We heard that, you know, that there's concerns about not having the survey and we know that our community consultation coordinator has extensive experience in that discipline and a PhD. And if she was in consultancy, she'd be one of the people we'd be paying to do third-party reviews of surveys. So, by raising it as a notice of motion, it doesn't give us the opportunity to fully consider the implications of this isolated approach to one element of consultation. There is no urgency to make this now, there is no significant consultation coming up or surveys that doesn't allow us to consider it in full context with the evidence base, with an understanding of how surveys are currently portrayed, like the two biggest surveys we run are done by the leaders in the field in Australia. Is that the target of them? Maybe not. So, what I've done is removed the direct developments. The direct development in A is basically saying we're going to set the policy, then we're going to ask for a report about it. I've just suggested, let's get a report, and actually that will come with a prior workshop or something. That ticked around the table. So we all have an understanding of what this might mean. I would like to make my decision after receiving the advice of our qualified and experienced staff, and some have decades of experience in this field. I want to hear what our staff think about what is the most effective use of ratepayer dollars, because really A commits us to higher cost consultation on significant projects, and as was said in the response to one of the questions, quite frequently we do have independent experts as consultants to these projects. I want to say how do we best get community input and community engagement? Is it paying consultants to do third party review? Or is it investing in upskilling our staff? Because maybe part of the issue is not the community engagement area but other parts of the Council that could be in benefit from understanding how to construct surveys. And that's a great example of building the capacity within rather than committing to paying consultants out into the future. And orders, the amount of money we spend on third party are going to receive better results if we invest in other aspects of engagement. We've heard recently we've upped our, you'll our Your Say Noosa page and that's a platform now that we can receive a lot of informal inputs from the community and the page itself is leading edge and it can analyse the sentiment. So maybe the importance of formal surveys aren't going to be as high in the future. So amendment doesn't negate the motion, as I said. I understand where we have done surveys of some concerns and always we should be trying to encourage staff to have that process of continuous improvement and innovation, but what it does say is if we are committed to good engagement, then notices of motion aren't the way to do it. Really clearly. And if we are committed to evidence-based, we don't do it on a one paragraph background information to a notice of motion. We do it after considering all the facts and I understand why it's raised, but I think we've got time to consider it in more depth and to come up with-- it might be the same recommendation, but we will have considered the evidence-based and considered what is best to spend the ratepayers' money on in terms of improving the inputs from our community to significant projects and their plans.

Frank Wilkie143:29

No, you are wrong. Well my apologies. Thank you. Now, I'm going to exercise my right to speak. I'm going to support the amendment for a simple reason because it's the correct process. It clarifies the correct process because part A community requires engagement surveys. Engagement survey. Place with the review by a survey qualified party, whereas the correct process is to have the report to Councillors first, be done about the costs and implications of obtaining the independent survey reviews. So, it achieves Councillor Phillips' objective, but it's, the, puts it in the correct order of the process. The other reason I support it is because there's a lot of discussion in the community about Council relying a lot on consultants. So it's very important that if we're going to get on the track of applying more consultants. The costs of that are understood, the costs and political implications of that are clearly understood by Councillors before we commit to that. The other reason is a cultural one and that is. Culture starts at the top and the tone set by Councillors and the words and the language used by Councillors does have an impact on staff. So we're talking about independent, neutral. Unbiased language and part A does mention. It does question the integrity, the neutrality and the reliability of the staff's work. So by. Removing part A, you go to part B, which is a more neutral and unbiased resolution that's unlikely to impugn the integrity, neutrality and the confidence and never the reliability of staff work. So it still achieves the same outcome. It's a correct process and uses more neutral and unbiased language. I support the. Amendment.