Joint media release with Canberra Alliance for Participatory Democracy (CAPaD).
As Canberra moves towards the wider use of citizens’ juries, the Canberra Alliance for Participatory Democracy (CAPaD) and the ACT Council of Social Service (ACTCOSS) have joined forces to expose a draft set of principles to ensure that deliberative mechanisms are trialled in a robust, respectful and informed way.
There is a commitment within the parliamentary agreement which formed the new government to progress a citizens’ panel and the Barr Government has flagged that it intends to conduct one during the current parliamentary term.
Beth Slatyer, Co-Convenor of CAPaD, said, “Citizens’ juries are one tool that can be used to improve democracy in the ACT. We all need to learn how they can add value and what will deliver trust in the process. For those reasons it is essential that any trial is conducted in a way that supports the whole community to explore, share and learn together how best to use citizens’ juries in the ACT.
“The principles ask for fairness, accountability, neutrality and an evidence based approach with clear markers of success. They’ve been developed following initial discussions between CAPaD, ACTCOSS and community thought leaders and we’re now making them available to the community, including members of the Legislative Assembly in the hope that the community will respond with their ideas about how to strengthen participatory democracy in the ACT,” Ms Slatyer said.
According to Susan Helyar, Director of ACTCOSS, “We are living at a time when many people are cynical about their ability to influence change through traditional methods, so it’s appropriate that we start a conversation about new methods by inviting the community to tell us what it would take to win their confidence. We’re sharing these draft principles in the hope that we can start a conversation about how the community expects them to work.
“Citizens’ juries aren’t the only mechanism for opening our democracy, nor is deliberation appropriate for every topic – particularly for those when government has already made up its mind. Community participation is a finite resource, so if we are to really widen our democracy then we need to respect the outcomes and all the participants in the process – citizens, jurors, witnesses and the public. We also need to recognise the value of broader engagement being intrinsic to decision making, including when we use deliberation”, Ms Helyar said.
A copy of the draft principles is at Attachment A (below). ACTCOSS and CAPaD will be receiving comments on the draft principles between now and the end of September and then presenting the final principles on the anniversary of the 2016 election. Going forward we will also be laying out some broader guiding principles for community engagement and participation in ACT governance.
For comment please contact:
Beth Slatyer, Co-Convenor, CAPaD on 0409 995 850
Susan Helyar, Director, ACTCOSS on 0448 791 987 or 02 6202 7200.
Attachment A
Draft Principles/Criteria for the Trial of Citzens’ Juries in the Australian Capital Territory
The ACT Council of Social Service (ACTCOSS) and the Canberra Alliance for Participatory Democracy (CAPaD) share these principles/criteria for the trial of citizens’ juries in the ACT, which have been identified through work towards a shared agenda on engagement with thought leaders and stakeholders.
The ACT Government has indicated that it wants to trial citizens’ juries in the ACT. This is something CAPaD has been advocating for, and fits within the broader objective of improving participation shared by both ACTCOSS and CAPaD.
Citizens’ juries are one tool that can be used to improve democracy in the ACT. We all need to learn when and how they can add value and what will deliver trust in the process. For those reasons it is essential that any trial is conducted in a way that supports the whole community to explore, share and learn together how best to use citizens’ juries in the ACT.
The following principles have been developed to ensure citizens’ juries are trialled in a robust, respectful and informed way:
- The drivers, process, output/recommendations and response processes must be transparent and enable accountability.
Indicator: Sponsors provide a public description of the purpose and process (including how the public will be kept informed and how recommendations will be considered and responded to), before the jury is convened so everyone knows what is proposed. - Commitment is made to build broad community confidence in the process.
Indicator: The public is regularly updated on progress and receives prompt responses to questions about the process. - Sponsors/decision makers have not already made up their minds – they are open to advice and consider it seriously.
Indicator: There are no fixed positions on the outcome on the public record from sponsors and decision makers. The public is kept informed, the jury is given access to available points of contesting advice and government includes the advice in their considerations and responds publicly. - Sponsors and decision makers back the process and commit to responding.
Indicator: Sponsors provide a public description of the purpose and process (including how the public will be kept informed and how recommendations will be considered and responded to), before the jury is convened so everyone knows what is proposed. - Recruitment and facilitation are conducted by neutral actors with a transparent process.
Indicator: Community feedback trusts the process. - A fair spread of evidence/information is provided and drawn upon, and sufficient time is allowed for deliberation.
Indicator: Juror and community feedback confirms that a fair spread of information was provided, and sufficient time was allowed. - It is clear how the deep deliberative process relates to broader engagement.
Indicator: Sponsors provide a public description of the purpose and process (including how the public will be kept informed and how recommendations will be considered and responded to), before the jury is convened so everyone knows what is proposed. - Evaluation, learning and feedback is demonstrated to the community to be used to continuously improve the process.
Indicator: A public and transparent evaluation process is used to gather and share information about the success and failures of the trial.
We believe that a stronger decision making process requires government to see itself as a good steward of community engagement.
This includes shared learning, improved knowledge and capability, not only an ability to use different mechanisms. Going forward we will be laying out some broader guiding principles for community engagement and participation in ACT governance.
ACTCOSS and CAPaD welcome feedback on these principles until 29 September 2017 via [email protected].