Governance - a citizen’s jury | Biocity Studio
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Governance - a citizen’s jury | Biocity Studio

on

  • 2,692 views

There is a very complex structure of the relationship between the different governances, e.g. State, Federal, Local and Community. The crisis issue is the potential for corruption, power of political ...

There is a very complex structure of the relationship between the different governances, e.g. State, Federal, Local and Community. The crisis issue is the potential for corruption, power of political donations, lack of community consultation, transparency and accountability. This presentation discusses a proposal for a citizen’s jury in the part 3a process in NSW.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,692
Views on SlideShare
2,677
Embed Views
15

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0

1 Embed 15

http://biocitystudio.com 15

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • This slide demonstrates the complex governance structures and the relationships between the different Governance organisations. We spent a lot of time exploring this complex system, in order to find and understand the issues with the current governance structure.
  • How it works now- Part 3A... Projects of state significance, how it works, why was it set up, what triggers it??
  • We propose a citizens jury. The Citizens Jury process brings together 18 to 24 randomly selected citizens for five days of hearings in which they hear from a variety of witnesses, deliberate among themselves and report their findings to decision makers and the public. This will aim to improve accountability and transparency within the governance structure, about significant issues.
  • The Jefferson Center is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that advocates the use of a democratic process known as the Citizens Jury, established in 1974. The Centre does not take stands on issues. Its commitment is to empower the public in a fair and neutral setting to discover what it believes are the best ways to deal with significant public issues. Bias evaluation conducted to ensure no staff biases influence the trial, and a concise record has been kept of staff neutrality to ensure a fair process and outcome.
  • The aim of the Jefferson Centre Citizens Jury model is to create and maintain a high quality method for engaging a microcosm of the public in the discussion of public policy issues. The Citizens Jury process brings together 18 to 24 randomly selected citizens for five days of hearings in which they hear from a variety of witnesses, deliberate among themselves and report their findings to decision makers and the public.
  • Briefly explain the jury selection process.
  • Explain the purpose of the charge.
  • Independent project staff select a range of expert witnesses, which range from neutral witnesses to advocates and stakeholders, both for and against, in the project to present a range of information so the jury can come to an informed decision. The witnesses should be chosen so a true representation of the issue is achieved.
  • The whole jury process takes a recommended time of 5 days, with extra time for deliberation. The jury then puts together a preliminary report, using language they approve of, to be issued to the Minister and the media, which contains their recommendations. These recommendations can range from approval to dismissal, or contain advised changes that must be responded to by the Minister. A final, more extensive report will be issued soon after.
  • The report issued by the jury is published in the public media, and also passed on to the Minister. The minister then issues a response, which can either agree or disagree with the jury’s findings. The Minister is forced to explain in his/her report why it has chosen to accept or decline the findings in the overall decision. As a result of this whole process the wider community becomes better informed, educated and aware of the issues, and therefore has the power to act accordingly in our democratic society by using their votes to prove a point. The media coverage is crucial in increasing the accountability of our politicians, the more the community hears, the more aware they will become.
  • In conclusion, we believe the citizens jury process will help to make the government more accountable to their electorate. By making the community more aware of the reasons behind large decisions they can feel empowered to vote with confidence on the big issues. This system has eliminated the closed tender process, as all decisions include the community in form or another. This can also be used in a range of scales from national to local and on a range of issues. We believe that with the current problems of Peak Oil and Climate Change, large decisions need to be made, and we feel that the community should be a big part of these decisions. The Citizens Jury process will allow the community to participate as educated and informed individuals.

Governance - a citizen’s jury | Biocity Studio Presentation Transcript

  • 1. GOVERNANCE
    • gov⋅ern⋅ance
    •    – noun
    • 1. government; exercise of authority; control.
    • 2. a method or system of government or management.
    By Amy Mirow and Chloe Tait
  • 2. COMPLEX GOVERNANCE RELATIONSHIPS
  • 3. ISSUES
    • Potential for Corruption
      • Eg. Wollongong Council
    • Power of Political donations
      • From 2000-2007: donors affiliated with the ALP won or later won government contracts that totalled $15 billion.
    • Lack of Community consultation.
    • Improvements need to be made in transparency and accountability.
  • 4. CRISIS/ SCENARIO
    • Proposed Development :
    • Tunnel from Bondi to Manly
    • ISSUES:
    • Closed tender process
    • Community concerns disregarded
    • urban parkland and public housing destroyed
    • political donations influenced ministers decisions
  • 5. PART 3A- THE CURRENT PROCESS
    • Community consultation does not carry the same weight as other factors
    • Void between Step 2 and Step 3 .
  • 6. OUR PROPOSAL:
    • Citizens Jury
  • 7. THE JEFFERSON CENTRE MODEL
    • The Jefferson Centre is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that advocates the use of a democratic process known as the Citizens Jury.
    • Established in 1974
    • Bias evaluation conducted to ensure no staff biases.
  • 8. HOW DOES A CITIZENS JURY WORK?
  • 9. PROPOSED PART 3A PROCESS
    • What triggers a citizens jury?
    • The enactment of part 3a
  • 10. JURY SELECTION
  • 11. THE CHARGE
  • 12. WITNESSES
  • 13. RECOMMENDATIONS/ OUTCOMES
  • 14. GOVERNMENTS RESPONSE
  • 15. OTHER AREAS/SOLUTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED
    • Political donations cap
      • Further Reduce the influence of donators on the decision making process.
    • Information centres/shopfronts
      • Information centres set up to educate and engage the community about proposed development
    • Stricter consultation guidelines
      • The government needs to set up stricter guidelines as to what consultation processes need to be set up for each major project .
    • Holding decision-makers accountable for their actions
      • This can be achieved through disciplinary action
  • 16. CONCLUSIONS
    • The Citizens jury process will increase accountability and transparency in our governance system.
  • 17. REFERENCES
    • TEXT REFERENCES
    • The Jefferson Centre, 2009, Citizens Jury Process [online] Available at: http://www.jefferson-center.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={2BD10C3C-90AF-438C-B04F-88682B6393BE} [Accessed 22.1.09]
    • Nature Conservation Council of NSW, 2009, Major Project (Part 3A) [online] Available at: http://nccnsw.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1712&Itemid=871 [Accessed 22.1.09]
    • NSW Government Department of Planning (b), 2009, Why the major projects assessment system was introduced [online] Available at: http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/assessingdev/pdf/Sep07%20FS1_MajProjAssess%20NEW.pdf [Accessed 21.1.09]
    • NSW Government Department of Planning (c), 2009, Critical Infrastructure [online] Available at: http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/assessingdev/pdf/Sep07%20FS7_CriticalInfrast.pdf [Accessed 21.1.09]
    • IMAGE REFERENCES
    • Brogan, 2009, Newspaper [online] Available at: http://www.brogan.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/newspaper.jpg [Accessed 22.1.09]
    • College of Computing, 2009, Projects [online] Available at: http://www.cc.gatech.edu/cpl/projects/graphcuttextures/data/rotation-perspective/people-out-persp.gif [Accessed 22.1.09]
    • Moving Images Moving People, 2009, Influence on print media [online] Available at: http://movingimages.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/tv-influence-on-print-media.jpg [Accessed 22.1.09]
    • Neuroscience Research Institute, 2009, Images- people [online] Available at: http://www.nri.ucsb.edu/images/people.jpg [Accessed 22.1.09]
    • NSW Government Department of Planning, 2009, Steps in the major project assessment process [online] Available at: http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/assessingdev/pdf/Sep07%20FS3_StepsMajorProjAsses%20NEW.pdf [Accessed 22.1.09]
    • Photobucket, 2009, David Hicks Plea [online] Available at: http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u290/bschiavone/2007-03-28DavidHickspleahomesoon226.jpg [Accessed 22.1.09]
    • Renew Centre for Personal Recovery, 2009, Internet explorer image [online] Available at: http://www.renew.net/images/internet_explorer.png [Accessed 22.1.09]
    • Talking NFL, 2009, Jury [online] Available at: http://www.talkingnfl.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/vick_jury1.jpg [Accessed 22.1.09]
    •  
  • 18.