Collaborative Solutions for Infrastructure Challenges

1. 2016 National Local Government Infrastructure & Asset Management Conference Infrastructure challenges: how collaboration can enable substantial progress

2. Scales of infrastructure challenge policy Citizens’ Juries Deliberative Poll Community managed processes Resident feedback People’s Panel Co-design Shared sense making Better problem definition Sustainable decisions Better business cases Risk elimination Co-investment program project

3. What is a citizens’ jury? • 12-24 randomly selected against stratified criteria (though 43 being applied more recently) • Usually 3-5 days in duration, though more recently it is not uncommon to have 4 to 5 half day meetings several weeks apart. • Overseen by stakeholder steering committee. • Commitment by decision-makers to seriously consider and publicly respond to recommendations. • Consensus sought, though not necessary to be useful.

4. Risks with citizens’ juries • Stakeholders can feel marginalised • Sponsoring organisations may see as a way to disempower those with different points of view. • Broader community can feel left out, and be left out. • Stakeholders will not go on the same journey as jurors, and may well still be polarised • Stakeholders may choose not to participate and lobby decision-makers directly • Bright, newish shiny thing can be used inappropriately

5. Benefits of citizens’ juries • Potential for the really deep dive • Transformative for jurors • Jurors can advocate for process and outcome • Those with strong interests are required to pitch to citizens (rather than claiming to speak on their behalf when lobbying) • Clearer accountability with process outputs and ultimate decisions made

6. “When I came into this process all I could see was a two-dimensional circle. Now I can see a three-dimensional object and I can’t go back.”

7. City of Melbourne – Participatory Budgeting

8. NDIS Citizens’ Jury

11. Deliberative Poll • Process is similar to a Citizens’ Jury though much larger in number (up to 200, usually between 80 and 120) shorter in duration (1-2 days), and more questions considered. • Consensus not expected – but a pre-poll and post-poll is undertaken to see what most people would support, and how they might shift, if given sufficient information, and time to deliberate.

12. Community Managed Processes • A process that invites members of the community to host their own engagement session with whoever, and however, they like. • Provided with a resource kit and given some orientation. • Output from conversations is recorded online and assessed, and then fed into a synthesis workshop.

14. Resident Feedback Register/People’s Panel • Resident Feedback Register consists of recruiting about 100 citizens randomly, gaining their agreement to participate, and to survey them up to 6 times per year. • Before each survey material is sent about the particular issue, inviting participants to think it over and discuss with family/friends/neighbours. • People’s Panels differ in that anyone can sign up to it, and they can pick and choose which issues they want to provide input or feedback on.

15. Imperatives for citizens’ juries

16. Why do you think there is growing interest in deliberative processes? Bored with conventional processes We need some ‘light’, not just ‘heat’ These issues need a deep dive! Growing recognition that BAU approaches are VERY risky!’ They sound funky, and becoming popular We need to hear what the broader community thinks, not just those who are really unhappy It would be nice to be in a process where we are not being constantly yelled at.

17. Value at risk • Time of Comms, PR and Executive team • Costs of plant, labour, site retention • Delayed revenue / value stream Project delays • Contractor/consultant scope and fee escalation • Potential project failure and contractual liabilities Project re-scoping • Risk premium increasing cost of capital • Opportunity cost of additional funds deployed • Increase in insurance premiums • Risk to future project pricing competitiveness Cost over-runs • Erosion of market valuation (asset and/or enterprise) • Recruitment and retention undermined • Reduced desirability as a project partner • Better outcomes and efficiency dividend from trust Brand damage • Erosion of (marginal) political capital • Reduced willingness to lead change • Compliance culture and risk aversion Governance impact Financial Human, and Social capital

18. Risk to public value is escalating No-one has all the insights or answers Complexity permits multiple ‘truths’ Increasing pressure to do more with less Changing relationships with power

19. The unrealised opportunity reward humanly achievablePATHWAYS jumping toCONCLUSIONS old solutionREPETITION collaborativeDIAGNOSIS process andCONTROLS intentionalDESIGN Immediate and escalating return on investment risk

20. Public infrastructure case study: municipal water management City of Munno Para City of Salisbury City of Tea Tree Gully

21. Public infrastructure case study: municipal water management • FROM • Well engineered, preconceived solution • Narrow situational understanding • Misdiagnosed problem • Competition of ‘powers’ • Eroding public value at municipality scale • TO • Best-value water allocation • Collaborative, integrated regional plan • Innovative business model • $40m federal cities funding

22. What are your conclusions? • What have stakeholder issues really cost you? • What current initiatives are at risk, where the cost of inaction could be substantial? • What would need to be true for you to take collaborative action with confidence?