Revealing 666 talkback: yep, that "consultation" is cynical bull****

“Consultations” are the bit they tack on. They scope out the project, get it rolling, have a time-line and a budget… the consulatation at best is a chance for them to guauge where the main sticking-point will be, what will be opposed the strongest and what the objections are. They never have the slightest intention of making major changes or actually not continuing with it.

Usually though, consultation is just a box to tick along the way. They’re already proceeding when the consultation phase closes.

Yes it’s a joke, they think we’re stupid and will continue to play along.

tommy said :

Really you have to treat ‘consultation’ as the ability to voice your opinion in an organised manner as part of the greater process. If you are betting the farm that ‘consultation’ is a popularity poll or a vote, then probably going to be disappointed in those kind of processes.

A while back I had some brief consultation with ACT Govt about a foot path going down our street, a few people said they didn’t want the foot path. Everyone still got a foot path in front of their house. For those who engaged with the consulting, we got the storm water run off issues fixed at the same time and a refreshed driveway (the verge bit not the whole lot).

Do you live in my street? Doesn’t affect me as I ive on a side of my street that has not got a new footpath, however what I see as I drive past is that residents park on it illegally and block pedestrian access, meaning that they have to walk on the road to get around all the vehicles. Previously the paved area was a nature strip where cars could be easily parked. Good move.

Was there a consultant or was it done in house?

Sepi brings up a good point though. 30 responses, mostly negative, Antony Green would call an election on that basis.

I-filed said :

rosscoact said :

In this case I would assume that the comments listed in the report (with the majority being negative) didn’t match up with the conclusion or government response to the comments. It’s probably a case of the person preparing the report didn’t translate the tenor of the responses into a call for more community engagement.

A relatively minor bureaucratic failure albeit with more significant consequences rather than some conspiracy to thwart the good people of Chisholm.

Just sayin

Without the podcast it’s hard to be sure, but I think the 666 caller said that he and several neighbours had been in touch with the government AND had also contributed to the online discussion. So the “bureaucrat” was negligent and the report was inaccurate, if that’s the case. Or – did the consultant delete some submissions?

It is hard to motivate people to write letters. 30 letters against the units being built over a park does not sound like much, but I bet they did not get 30 letters form local residents supporting the idea of losing their park to apartments.

rosscoact said :

In this case I would assume that the comments listed in the report (with the majority being negative) didn’t match up with the conclusion or government response to the comments. It’s probably a case of the person preparing the report didn’t translate the tenor of the responses into a call for more community engagement.

A relatively minor bureaucratic failure albeit with more significant consequences rather than some conspiracy to thwart the good people of Chisholm.

Just sayin

Without the podcast it’s hard to be sure, but I think the 666 caller said that he and several neighbours had been in touch with the government AND had also contributed to the online discussion. So the “bureaucrat” was negligent and the report was inaccurate, if that’s the case. Or – did the consultant delete some submissions?

It does happen a lot that people don’t care/don’t see the relevance/are too pre-occupied with living until some publicity happens around the thing that they ignored in the first place.

In this case I would assume that the comments listed in the report (with the majority being negative) didn’t match up with the conclusion or government response to the comments. It’s probably a case of the person preparing the report didn’t translate the tenor of the responses into a call for more community engagement.

A relatively minor bureaucratic failure albeit with more significant consequences rather than some conspiracy to thwart the good people of Chisholm.

Just sayin

rosscoact said :

30 out of 3000 yt 90 turn up to a protest?

It would appear that apathy does have a cost

Not at all. Easy to tweak anything online. How was it promoted? Did they leaflet the neighbourhood letting them know the consultation was on? Or did they put a tiny notice on the ACT Government website somewhere, at the top of the page for a day or so until the next notice? If 90 showed up to a protest, that means, for sure, that the figure of 30 responses online is a joke.
This reeks of “tick the box” and absolutely no motivation to get the true story from the residents. Massive fail, Andrew!

30 out of 3000 yt 90 turn up to a protest?

It would appear that apathy does have a cost

I submitted an strong objection to the development – even though I live on the other side of Simpson’s Hill, there are few parks in Chisholm you can walk to from my street and my kids have often gone over the hill to that park. Gone are the days when kids could play on school playgrounds, as they are all locked up a/h now.
i think it’s pathetic to say ‘we only got x amount of responses’. They should be looking at the issues properly and not just saying, ‘oh that would be the responsibility of Roads ACT, the police, etc’ to justify why people should accept their short sighted and money-grubbing plans.

666 ABC dont podcast the “ask the Chief Minister” segment.