Processes of the
Commission
3.
section 3.4 |
appendix 1
Context and process
Section contents
3.
Processes of the Commission
102
3.4
Public Meetings: the process 127
Introduction
127
Regulatory requirements regarding consultation
127
Interpretation of consultation requirements
128
Establishing a public consultation programme
129
Establishing the Public Meeting programme
129
Location
130
Dates and times
131
Venues
131
Programme
131
Commission staff involved in public meetings
135
Recording of attendees and proceedings
135
Advertising and publicity of public meetings
135
Media coverage
136
A summary of the proceedings
136
Attendance
137
Modifications to workshop programme
138
Report Appendix 1 | Royal Commission on Genetic M odification
Section 3: Processes of the Commission
| H1 | p127
Royal Commission on Genetic Modification | Report Appendix 1
3.4 Public Meetings: the
process
Introduction
The Commission developed an extensive consultation programme to meet the
requirements of its terms of reference (the Warrant).
The consultation programme included the Public Meetings, Hui, Youth Forum
and Formal Hearings of Interested Persons.
This paper is a summary of the process involved in conducting 15 Public Meetings
throughout New Zealand, from Invercargill to Whangarei, over a five-week
period in the last quarter of 2000. An analysis of the information gleaned at these
meetings is contained in Appendix 3 (see section 2: "Public Meetings: summary of
outcomes").
Regulatory requirements regarding
consultation
The Commission was directed to "receive representations upon, inquire into,
investigate, and report" on the strategic options and any changes considered
desirable to existing regulatory processes regarding genetic modification in New
Zealand.
The Warrant also referred to the Commission's consultation process:
And you are required, in carrying this Our Commission into effect, -
*
to consult with the public in a way that allows people to express clearly their
views, including ethical, cultural, environmental, and scientific perspectives, on
the use, in New Zealand, of genetic modification, genetically modified organisms,
and products; and
*
to adopt procedures that will encourage people to express their views in relation to
any of the matters referred to in the immediately preceding paragraph; and
*
to consult and engage with Maori in a manner that specifically provides for their
needs; and
* to use relevant expertise, including consultancy and secretarial services, and to
conduct, where appropriate, your own research
p128 |
Section 3: Processes of the Commission
Report Appendix 1 | Royal Commission on Genetic M odification
The manner in which the Commission consulted with the New Zealand public
was also influenced by section 4A(1) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1908. The
Act differentiated between the general public and those who satisfied the
Commission they had an interest "above and beyond" that of the general public.
Applications for Interested Persons were sought and some 12 weeks of hearings
were allocated to hear them, their witnesses and/or legal counsel. Further details
regarding this process are described below (see "Formal Hearings: the process").
The Commission was, however, free to determine the method by which it would
consult with the general public.
Interpretation of consultation requirements
The Commission announced its inquiry brief and consultation programme on 7
August 2000, at the opening of its three-day Scoping Meetings, the Commission's
first interaction with the New Zealand public:
The Warrant requires that we consult with the people of New Zealand in a way that allows
them to express their views clearly. Some already have strongly held opinions. We expect
there will be firm, forthright submissions. Some people feel passionate about the issues.
We hope to have a rational, civilised, focused debate. We would like to think this can be
achieved notwithstanding the existence of strong or passionate viewpoints. There will be
no point in people shouting at one another, or at the Commission. Many have not yet
committed themselves to any stance. They are entitled to the opportunity to do so.
The Commission stated that its consultation with the New Zealand public would
be "as open as possible, and as inclusive as we can [be], giving everyone who wishes
to present their views to us a fair and reasonable opportunity, although not
necessarily by way of a personal appearance". It identified the Internet as one tool
by which it would achieve these objectives.
The Commission also made it clear that it was working to a deadline of 1 June
2001: "To achieve completion by due date, we will have to limit the time that can
be allocated to any one topic, or to any person or organisation. Although there
must always be room for flexibility, we will need to adhere to a tight timetable".
The Commission's Opening Statement also acknowledged public concern
regarding the definition of Interested Persons and who might contribute to the
Commission's inquiry:
The distinction between so called "interested persons" and the general public is not one
the Commission has established. The same law applies to all Commissions of Inquiry and
we are bound by it. We assure the public that their voice will be heard. "Interested person"
Section 3: Processes of the Commission
| H1 | p129
Royal Commission on Genetic Modification | Report Appendix 1
may give the wrong impression, we know all of you are really interested, but those
happen to be the words of the Act of Parliament.
In addition to assuring the public that "their voice will be heard" despite not
being defined as Interested Persons, the Commission indicated that it would
"arrange less formal public meetings and consultations in a number of other
places".
Establishing a public consultation
programme
The Commission's objectives in establishing a public consultation programme
were:
*
to determine public response to the issues addressed by the Warrant
*
to provide an opportunity for `ordinary New Zealanders' to express their
views
*
to meet its consultation obligations, as outlined in its Warrant
*
to meet its deadline of 1 June 2001
*
to provide a human face to a national inquiry
*
to be as accessible as possible.
In order to hear the views of members of the public not accorded Interested
Person status, the Commission established the following consultation methods:
*
Public Meetings
*
written submissions
*
Hui
*
Youth Forum
*
Public Opinion Survey.
Establishing the Public Meeting programme
In order to meet the above listed objects, some form of public meeting was
identified as the most effective method of consulting with as many New Zealanders
as possible within a short time frame.
The Public Meeting programme was designed to assist the Commission in
gathering information on the issues outlined in its Warrant in an informal setting.
The purpose was, therefore, not to hear submissions but rather to allow the
Commission access to the views and opinions of a cross-section of New Zealanders.
To achieve this, a format similar to that used for the Scoping Meetings, held on 7,
8 and 9 August 2000, in Wellington, was used for the Public Meetings. The
workshop process using a `consensus card sort' (see below "Operational detail:
Public Meetings: Workshop process") was a proven method for addressing
contentious issues, such as genetic modification, and was designed to generate
constructive discussion rather than a polarising slanging match.
By combining a workshop with an `open floor' and `question time' in its Public
Meetings, the Commission was able to gauge the public's views on the issues
identified in its Warrant and other issues, as well as determining which of the
issues were of most importance within each region.
Following are details of the rationale and process involved in planning the public
meeting programme.
Location
As a national commission of inquiry, based in Wellington, the Commission was
mindful of the need to consult on a regional basis.
Fifteen regions were identified and public meetings were arranged in the centres
that contained the largest population mass and were most accessible from
surrounding areas. The Commission was also determined to visit New Zealand's
remoter regions such as Southland, the West Coast and Northland.
Meetings were held in the following centres:
*
Invercargill
Southland
*
Dunedin
Otago and Oamaru
*
Christchurch
Canterbury and Timaru
*
Greymouth
West Coast
*
Nelson
Marlborough and Nelson
*
New Plymouth
Taranaki
*
Palmerston North
Manawatu
*
Wellington
Wellington, Kapiti and Wairarapa
*
Hamilton
Waikato
*
Rotorua
Bay of Plenty
*
Napier
Hawke's Bay
*
Gisborne
Gisborne
*
Manukau City
Auckland
*
Auckland City
Auckland
*
Whangarei
Northland.
Some regional centres in which the Commission did not hold public meetings
were included in the Commission's Maori Consultation programme.
(For a complete schedule of the Commission's public meetings, see "Operational
detail: Public Meetings: Schedule".)
Dates and times
The public meeting programme commenced on 18 September 2000 in Invercargill
and concluded on 16 November 2000 in Whangarei. The 15 public meetings
were scheduled over a five-week period, during which the Commission
commenced its Formal Hearing process on 16 October 2000 and its Maori
Consultation programme on 4 November 2000.
To maximise its consultation time in each regional centre and meet its other
obligations, the Commission scheduled the Public Meetings for weekdays between
2 pm and 8 pm (except for Greymouth and Whangarei, when meetings were held
between 11.30 am and 4 pm and 11 am and 4 pm respectively).
The six-hour meetings were designed to accommodate those who wanted to spend
a considerable amount of time with the Commission as well as those who were able
to attend only after business hours.
Venues
Venues in which the public meetings were held varied from local theatres to hotel
conference rooms. Dependent on the population centre, venue capacity ranged
from 50 to 200 people.
Programme
The scheduled public meeting programme is shown on the following page.
Wherever possible, the programme was flexible. Members of the public were
welcome to arrive at any time during the six-hour meeting and be included in the
process. In addition, participants were able to modify the process: the meeting in
Whangarei was extended by an hour to accommodate additional speakers.
Details of each component of the programme are outlined below.
Mihimihi
Local iwi and/or papatipu representatives were invited to conduct a welcome
(mihimihi) for the Commissioners and Public Meeting attendees.
Welcome
Local government representatives were invited to attend to welcome the
Commission and also chair the `questions from the floor' segment of the Public
p132 |
Section 3: Processes of the Commission
Report Appendix 1 | Royal Commission on Genetic M odification
Meeting. The invitation was extended as acknowledgement of local government
involvement in genetic modification regulations and to provide the Commissioners
with information on local issues.
The welcome also included an opening statement by the Commission. The
statement included reference to the Commission's purpose, the nature of its
inquiry and its expectations of the day's proceedings. Commissioners also had the
opportunity to introduce themselves and provide a brief outline of their
backgrounds and interests.
Programme for Public Meetings
Time
Event
Participant
2 pm
Mihimihi
Local iwi or papatipu representative
(Greymouth 11.30 am)
Welcome
Local government representative
(Whangarei 11 am)
Commission
2.30 pm
Workshop
Facilitators
(Greymouth 12 pm)
(Whangarei 11.30 am)
5 pm
Break
(Greymouth 1.30 pm)
(Whangarei 1 pm)
5.30 pm
Workshop report
Workshop participants
(Greymouth 2.15 pm)
back
(Whangarei 2 pm)
7 pm
Questions from
Chaired by local government
(Greymouth 3 pm)
the floor
representative
(Whangarei 3 pm)
7.50 pm
Closing statements
Local government representative
(Greymouth 3.50 pm)
Commission
(Whangarei 3.50 pm)
8 pm
Close
(Greymouth 4 pm)
(Whangarei 4 pm)
p132 |
Section 3: Processes of the Commission
Report Appendix 1 | Royal Commission on Genetic M odification
Section 3: Processes of the Commission
| H1 | p133
Royal Commission on Genetic Modification | Report Appendix 1
Workshop
The facilitator introduced the workshop programme, which involved identifying,
discussing and recording issues of interest using the consensus card sort process.
Identifying issues to discuss
At the outset of the public meeting programme, participants were asked to respond
to questions based on the following eight topic headings:
*
human health issues
*
consumer choice/labelling issues
*
cultural/spiritual issues
*
environmental issues
*
economic issues
*
future use issues
*
global development issues
*
ethical issues.
The topic headings and questions were based on the Warrant and also the
outcomes of the Commission's Scoping Meetings. The questions were made
available at the Public Meetings as issue-specific A4 flip charts and a complete list
was available as a five-page document. A copy of the `Public Meetings Questions'
document was posted on the Commission website.
The questions were designed to stimulate discussion within the workshop phase of
the Public Meetings. In no way were the questions intended to be definitive or
indicate any particular viewpoint of the Commission. In addition, participants
were invited to identify their own questions.
After the identification of issues, participants were encouraged to select a table at
which a topic of personal interest was being addressed. Participants were
encouraged to move between tables in order to provide input into more than one
issue.
Consensus card sort process
The consensus sort process is a means of encouraging workshop participants to
identify, acknowledge and/or understand a variety of opinions surrounding a
complex issue. This process provided the Commission with an informed,
comprehensive view of issues of interest and concern within a region. The
consensus card sort process was also successfully used at the Commission's Scoping
Meetings in August 2000.
Section 3: Processes of the Commission
| H1 |
Royal Commission on Genetic Modification | Report Appendix 1
p133
The consensus card sort process involved four phases and required participants
to:
*
identify a question from the issue-specific flip chart and then write down
their individual response to each question on a separate white card
*
collect the white cards on the table and redistribute them to participants at
the table
*
collate the white cards into piles of similar questions, discuss and write a
summary of the content of each pile of collated cards on blue and/or green
cards
*
write the summarised issues on a large sheet of paper and nominate a
participant to report back to the Commissioners on the summary points.
The process was outlined in a one-page document available at the Public Meetings
and on the Commission website.
Participants were informed that the information contained on the blue and/or
green cards would be recorded on the Commission's website as a summary of the
public meeting workshops. Those who left early were requested to hand in their
white and coloured cards to the facilitators to ensure their contribution to the
workshop was recorded. Dependent on other commitments, Commissioners were
in attendance during the workshop process.
Workshop report back
After a half-hour break, the facilitators welcomed newcomers to the meeting and
outlined the next phase of the programme. Participants were advised that the
following portion of the meeting would be tape-recorded as a reference for the
Commission.
Workshop participants were then invited to report back on their discussions to the
Commissioners via a nominated representative who utilised the summary sheets
for reference. During this phase of the programme, Commissioners were invited
to seek clarification and ask questions of the discussions held by the facilitators.
Once all representatives had reported back, the facilitators thanked workshop
participants for their efforts and handed over the meeting to the local government
representative to chair the next phase.
Questions from the floor
The local government representative, as chair, provided guidelines as to the next
phase of the Public Meeting. Dependent on attendee numbers, participants were
advised that their speaking time would be limited (often to three minutes) and that
preference would be given to those who had not already spoken.
Commission staff involved in public meetings
Two independent contractors were hired to facilitate the workshop component of
the public meetings. They were employed for their knowledge of facilitation of
large groups, their experience in facilitating meetings on contentious issues and for
their understanding of the English and Maori languages and protocol. Both also
had previous experience working with the Commission at its Scoping Meetings.
In addition, a representative of the Commission secretariat attended each meeting
to assist in the facilitation of the meetings and to provide secretariat support to the
Commissioners and general public and media liaison.
Recording of attendees and proceedings
In order to record the views expressed during its public consultation programme,
the Commission implemented the following processes for different phases of its
public meetings.
Attendees
Public meeting attendees were invited to record their name and addresses on lists
placed on each table and at the door. As this was a self-selection exercise, the
resultant numbers were not truly indicative of the attendance.
Workshop outcomes
*
The white and coloured cards were collected. The contents of the coloured
cards (summaries) were transcribed for the Commission and placed on the
Commission website.
*
The large sheets of paper used for reference by nominated representatives of
each table were collected for use by the Commissioners.
*
The reporting back phase of the workshops was tape-recorded.
Questions from the floor and general discussion was also tape-recorded.
Advertising and publicity of public meetings
A combination of advertising methods and publicity exercises was utilised to
inform the public of the meetings on a national and regional basis.
Notification of the Public Meeting programme (and the Commission's consultation
process) first appeared in a nationally distributed news release on 21 August 2000.
In addition, a four-column by 22 cm advertisement (in English and Maori) was
placed in national dailies on the weekend of 2 September 2000. Further details
regarding dates, times and location of public meetings were provided in a
nationally distributed news release issued on 12 September 2000.
Information regarding the public meetings was also issued on a regional basis
using the following methods:
*
Print advertising. Advertisements, two-column by 12 cm size, were placed
in the public notice section of daily and community newspapers in the
immediate area an average of eight to nine days prior to the Public
Meetings.
*
Radio advertising. Thirty-second advertisements were placed on regional
radio stations to run every 2.5 hours between 6 am and 6 pm, for an average
of three to four days, at least three days prior to the Public Meetings.
*
Street posters. Because of the four-week lull in the programme, 900 street
posters were also utilised to advertise the last three Public Meetings. These
A3 and A4 posters were placed on street and shopping-complex locations an
average of 14 days prior to the Manukau City, Auckland City and Whangarei
public meetings.
*
News releases. News releases announcing upcoming Public Meetings were
distributed to regional and national media by fax and email an average of 16
days prior to the meetings.
*
Media liaison. Secretariat staff contacted local media by telephone an average
of two days prior, to arrange media coverage of Public Meetings.
*
Local government liaison. Local governments were contacted and requested to
place A4 posters on local noticeboards and include details of the Commission's
Public Meetings in any local government information material.
*
Website. The Public Meetings schedule was placed on the Commission
website and updated regularly. The website also included information on the
programme, the consensus card sort process, the workshop questions and a
list of "useful links and sources of reference material".
*
Secretariat. Details regarding the Public Meeting schedule were available
from the Commission office. Information kits regarding the Commission
were also available on request.
Media coverage
The Public Meetings received considerable coverage in the national and local
print and electronic media before and after the events.
A summary of the proceedings
Attendance at the Public Meetings by various groups of people is outlined below.
p136 |
Section 3: Processes of the Commission
Report Appendix 1 | Royal Commission on Genetic M odification
Attendance at Public Meetings
Centre
Approximate no. of attendees
Invercargill
15
Dunedin
70
Christchurch
140
Greymouth
30
Nelson
140
New Plymouth
30
Palmerston North
70
Wellington
70
Hamilton
110
Rotorua
60
Napier
70
Gisborne
30
Manukau City
80
Auckland City
140
Whangarei
200
Attendance
Participants
Figures for the number of attendees at the 15 Public Meetings are approximate
only. Numbers fluctuated during the meeting.
Invited representatives
Local iwi and papatipu representatives. Mihimihi were conducted by the persons
shown overleaf.
Local government representatives. The local government representatives shown
overleaf were involved in welcoming the Commissioners and Public Meeting
attendees, and chairing part of the meeting.
Commissioners
At least three of the four Commissioners attended each public meeting.
Section 3: Processes of the Commission
| H1 |
Royal Commission on Genetic Modification | Report Appendix 1
p137
Local iwi and papatipu representatives officiating at Public Meetings
Public Meeting
Iwi/papatipu
Kaikorero
Invercargill
Murihiku Marae
Dunedin
Otakou Marae
Edward Ellison
Christchurch
Nga Hau e Wha
Greymouth
Te Runanga o Makawhio
Gary Cogland
Nelson
Tainui Kawa
Barnie Thomas
New Plymouth
Taranaki
Lindsay Macleod,
Howie Tamati
Palmerston North Te Kenehi Teira
Sam Bishara
Wellington
Wellington Tenths Trust
Mark Te One,
Morven Simon
Hamilton
Tainui
Haare Puke
Rotorua
Tarawa
Pihopa Kingi
Napier
Te Whanganui-a-Rotu Taiwhenua Heitia Hiha
Gisborne
Turanga nui a Kiwa
Rutene Irwin
Manukau city
Tainui
Morris Wilson
Auckland City
Ngati Whatua
Matt Maihi
Whangarei
Ngati Wai
Albert Saddler
Modifications to workshop programme
Approximately half way through the Public Meeting schedule, workshop
participants elected to identify issues themselves rather than use the eight topic
headings provided by the Commission, as listed above. This request was
accommodated and the programme adjusted so that participants could identify
issues they wished to discuss. These were written down on a white board,
segregated into areas of commonality and a table designated for each issue,
identified by a piece of card.
p138 |
Section 3: Processes of the Commission
Report Appendix 1 | Royal Commission on Genetic M odification
Local government representatives at the Public Meetings
Public Meeting
Local government
Representative
Invercargill
Invercargill City Council
Mayor Tim Shadbolt
Dunedin
Dunedin City Council
Deputy Mayor Dame
Elizabeth Hanan
Christchurch
Christchurch City Council
Deputy Mayor Lesley Keast
Greymouth
Grey District Council
Cr Doug Truman
Nelson
Nelson City Council
Cr Derek Shaw
New Plymouth
New Plymouth District Council
Cr John Andrews
Palmerston North Palmerston North City Council
Mayor Jill White
Wellington
Wellington City Council
Cr Sue Piper
Hamilton
Hamilton City Council
Cr Alison Miller
Rotorua
Rotorua District Council
Mayor Grahame Hall
Napier
Napier City Council
Mayor Alan Dick
Gisborne
Gisborne District Council
Cr Simon Cave
Manukau City
Manukau City Council
Cr Neil Morrison
Auckland City
Auckland City Council
Cr Richard Northey
Whangärei
Whangärei District Council
Cr Robin Lieffering
In addition, copies of the Commission's questions were also available to those
who requested assistance and prompting with issues they wished to discuss.
The consensus card sort process was also modified during the programme,
sometimes to the extent that white cards became `scribble pads' for ideas and that
blue and/or green cards were submitted to the Commission as an individual's
statement on genetic modification.
Section 3: Processes of the Commission
| H1 |
Royal Commission on Genetic Modification | Report Appendix 1
p139