Research Deliberative Processes for Community Engagement (NZ0025)
Overview
At-a-Glance
Action Plan: New Zealand Action Plan 2022-2024 (December)
Action Plan Cycle: 2022
Status:
Institutions
Lead Institution: Te Kawa Mataaho Public Service Commission
Support Institution(s):
Policy Areas
Democratizing Decision-Making, Mainstreaming Participation, Public ParticipationIRM Review
IRM Report: New Zealand Action Plan Review 2022-2024
Early Results: Pending IRM Review
Design i
Verifiable: Yes
Relevant to OGP Values: Yes
Ambition (see definition): Low
Implementation i
Completion: Pending IRM Review
Description
Objective
To research how deliberative processes can be adapted to work well in the New Zealand context by identifying at least two examples of deliberative democratic processes on meaningful issues through a public sector/civil society/community alliance. Research to capture lessons learnt and share these to build capability. This will involve adapting the examples to the New Zealand context.
Ambition
To strengthen the range of available options for public participation by identifying pilots and trials where deliberative democratic processes (such as citizens’ assemblies, citizens’ juries and participatory budgeting) are being used. Capture lessons learnt and share these to develop greater awareness and understanding of these innovative practices.
Status Quo
Public authorities from all levels of government overseas increasingly use Citizens’ Assemblies, Juries, Panels, and other representative deliberative processes to tackle complex policy problems (ranging from climate change to infrastructure investment decisions). There is currently little use of deliberative processes in New Zealand. There is an opportunity to improve community participation over a range of topics by government agencies and communities trialling and experimenting with deliberative processes (for example, at a local level) and adapting these to the New Zealand context. Lessons learnt can be captured and used to improve deliberative processes and potentially to make these scalable to a national level. The two deliberative processes will be identified through engagement with civil society and agencies. Two recent examples identified by civil society are: • WaterCare NZ’s largest water and wastewater company who has recently trialled the use of citizen juries as a decision-making process. This is in partnership with the University of Auckland and Koi Tū, the centre for informed futures • A Wellington based iwi and their use of citizen assemblies (Talanoa/Wananga) to explore local issues with community groups. During our workshops some agencies were considering the use of deliberate processes, but these were not confirmed at the time of finalising the Plan. The final audience for this work is agencies to support capability development and share lessons learnt.
Te Tiriti o Waitangi
Deliberative processes must consider Te Tiriti. Innovative processes to tackle complex problems that incorporate Te Tiriti concepts and values can strengthen community participation and create outcomes that have strong credibility and support.
OGP Values: Transparency, Accountability, Public Participation
Milestones
Verifiable and measurable milestones to fulfil the commitment | Start date - End date
Identify at least two examples of the use of deliberative, democratic processes on meaningful issues | January 2023 - December 2023
Establish a joint agency/civil society working group to implement commitment | January 2023 - December 2023
Adapt the pilot deliberative processes to NZ context June 2023 June 2024 Evaluate the deliberative processes pilot to identify lessons learnt | June 2024 - October 2024
Publish results of pilot | June 2024 - October 2024
Build capability within government entities and communities to conduct deliberative processes based on lessons learnt | October 2024 - December 2024
Identify future projects to use deliberative processes | October 2024 - December 2024
IRM Midterm Status Summary
Action Plan Review
Commitment 2. Research Deliberative Processes for Community Engagement
● Verifiable: Yes
● Does it have an open government lens? Yes
● Potential for results: Modest