Welcome to Twyfords Blog

Employing an outside expert for the purposes of community engagement can certainly have its advantages, but there’s also a strong possibility that they’ll merely propagate an already existing and flawed mentality.

We all like to listen to experts and believe in what they say. After all, they’re experts, right? However, this can entail quite a risk. When specialists like us get invited into a situation, there’s often a strong tendency to just provide the solution. It might sound desirable, but there’s a good chance this will merely reproduce what's already occurring inside an organisation. In essence, this routinely takes the form of, ‘we know the answer, and if you listen to us, everything will be OK’. What follows in these cases is really more of the same rather than authentic stakeholder engagement.

The challenge for practitioners, I think, is to recognise that it’s how we do what we do, not what we do, that’s important. With this in mind, a different methodology may involve actually giving the people inside an organisation the experience of engagement, letting them explore a particular situation and then seek the solution with your help rather than simply just giving them the answer. It’s essentially about being a facilitator for an entire new paradigm.

While not always an easy thing to do, this approach is much more likely to bring about the type of change that organisations and groups are seeking. True, the traditional expert model may indeed provide a quick, ready-made course of action, but it will not modify the all-important pattern of behaviour. This is something we definitely need a shift away from. Even seasoned experts don’t know all the answers, but the diligent ones should be willing to listen and work with clients to arrive at a solution together.

Author: John Dengate

For the last six weeks I’ve been interviewed numerous times on ABC local radio, discussing key ideas and issues surrounding the as yet undecided federal election.

Not surprisingly, the topic of late has centred on the idea of a hung parliament, and the question of how parliament could be more deliberative or democratic given that no one has a clear mandate. It’s no secret that the current model is pretty ‘tired’, and is more about theatre than serious debate or innovative policy development. A hung parliament definitely offers an opportunity for a different way of deliberating over complex or controversial matters.

Consider this: instead of turning sensitive issues into political footballs, why not have a few parliamentarians put forward some different ideas about what a policy should look like. Then you could actually mix up the house so people weren’t sitting with their parties, give them 10 minutes to have a chat with the person sitting next to them, then have an anonymous vote to try and figure out what parliamentarians are really thinking. It’s an approach that would eliminate the necessity of members voting along usual party lines and it would actually encourage them to think.

Of course, even with this sort of innovation in place, it would still be unclear if parliamentarians were representing the will of the people. This is where citizens’ engagement could play a role and add value. I can envisage the recruitment of a randomly selected group charged with the task of thinking about an issue, doing some solid research and coming up with a recommendation. The advantage is that decisions would be generally unfettered by political affiliations, party dynamics and vested interests. Chances are that solutions would be offered reasonably quickly.

It’s not as if such an approach is unprecedented. Indeed, the criminal jury system is just one example of where we already trust a group of our peers to reach verdicts on our behalf. Why not expand this approach to help deal with bigger issues that directly impact upon the future of our community and country? Citizens’ Juries have been around since 1970 in the USA and have proven to offer wise and considered recommendations to decision-makers in Australia for the past 10 years.

Author: Max Hardy

For the last six weeks I’ve been interviewed numerous times on ABC local radio, discussing key ideas and issues surrounding the as yet undecided federal election.

Not surprisingly, the topic of late has centred on the idea of a hung parliament, and the question of how parliament could be more deliberative or democratic given that no one has a clear mandate. It’s no secret that the current model is pretty ‘tired’, and is more about theatre than serious debate or innovative policy development. A hung parliament definitely offers an opportunity for a different way of deliberating over complex or controversial matters.

Consider this: instead of turning sensitive issues into political footballs, why not have a few parliamentarians put forward some different ideas about what a policy should look like. Then you could actually mix up the house so people weren’t sitting with their parties, give them 10 minutes to have a chat with the person sitting next to them, then have an anonymous vote to try and figure out what parliamentarians are really thinking. It’s an approach that would eliminate the necessity of members voting along usual party lines and it would actually encourage them to think.

Of course, even with this sort of innovation in place, it would still be unclear if parliamentarians were representing the will of the people. This is where citizens’ engagement could play a role and add value. I can envisage the recruitment of a randomly selected group charged with the task of thinking about an issue, doing some solid research and coming up with a recommendation. The advantage is that decisions would be generally unfettered by political affiliations, party dynamics and vested interests. Chances are that solutions would be offered reasonably quickly.

It’s not as if such an approach is unprecedented. Indeed, the criminal jury system is just one example of where we already trust a group of our peers to reach verdicts on our behalf. Why not expand this approach to help deal with bigger issues that directly impact upon the future of our community and country? Citizens’ Juries have been around since 1970 in the USA and have proven to offer wise and considered recommendations to decision-makers in Australia for the past 10 years.

Author: Max Hardy

On Sunday night, I tuned into The 7.30 Report and saw probably the best interview I've seen in relation to the entire 2010 federal election.

The subject of Kerry O'Brien's searching inquistion were the three independents who appear set to play decisive roles in an increasingly likely hung parliament.  Of them all, Rob Oakeshott particularly captured my attention when he was asked about the requirements or incentives that would lead him to support one party or the other.  Unlike the other two, he didn't talk about deal-breakers, demands or wants.  He actually talked about the process of parliament, the process of government and about wanting to ensure that the process worked effectively.

I thought his comments were an interesting reflection on the campaign and highlighted the differences between engaging to get an outcome and engaging in relation to the process.  I think he was reflecting something that we think is pretty important, which is that effective engagement and consultation is as much about focusing on good process and hearing all the voices as it is in achieving an actual result.  It was refreshing to hear that there was a different conversation occurring, which is something that happens when good engagement occurs.

It's all made me wonder whether this election result is actually the best outcome we could have had.  Could we be entering an era where effective engagement and consultation is set to play a significant role within the federal political landscape?  Has it made the main players pay more attention to the need to arrive at good policy rather than to just have policy?  I'm hopeful.  If the hung parliament does indeed drive an increased desire to engage more effetively in the public policy arena, I think it can't be a bad thing.

Author: John Dengate

I became acutely aware of a largely untapped renewable energy source at the weekend, but it had nothing to do with the wind, the sun or heat stored deep within the earth.

It began when I attended the Walk Against Warming rally in the (Wollongong) City Mall on Saturday, followed by a council-run sustainability workshop in my local village the day after.  The latter provided the chance for the community members to learn how they could improve of promote sustainability.  Interestingly, both events were patronised by a surprising number of normal, everyday people.  Some had passionate viewpoints, while others had been drawn in by their curiousity and interest.

However, all of them had what we might call discretionary energy - energy to invest in this crucial issue.  They could have spent it doing anything else but they chose, at their discretion, to exhibit a strong desire to help solve the pressing problem of climate change.  Many of us have got that discretionary energy to invest in being a part of the solution, and I think we need the opportunity as well as the appropriate forum or context to contribute as indivdiuals and as communities.

The point for us at Twyfords is that good engagement unleashes or taps into this invisible renewable resource, this discretionary energy that we can bring to issues.  This fabulous energy source is waiting to be used by governments and decision-makers.  We just need the processes, the systems and the culture to allow it to happen.