Community Consultation Under Fire: Calls to Ban NDAs and Tackle Consultant Overreliance
A recent inquiry by the Victorian Legislative Council has delivered a scathing assessment of community consultation processes for government projects, recommending an outright ban on non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) and an urgent overhaul of the state’s reliance on external consultants. The findings, detailed in the inquiry’s final report, highlight a systemic failure to engage genuinely with Victorians, often leaving communities feeling unheard and misled.
The inquiry heard compelling evidence that individuals involved in community reference groups, council officers, and other representatives are frequently compelled to sign NDAs. In some instances, residents impacted by infrastructure projects have been forced to sign “gag orders” before receiving any practical solutions to the problems caused by construction. This practice, the inquiry stated, is “entirely antithetical to a genuine consultation process.”
The report specifically condemned the practice of requiring individuals to sign NDAs before receiving mitigation measures, such as additional vegetation to screen lighting from new structures. Such actions, it argued, “undermine transparent project delivery.”
The Municipal Association of Victoria, the peak body representing Victorian councils, also reported being “obstructed” in its statutory duties due to state government officials imposing NDAs.
A Pattern of Poor Engagement and Misinformation
The inquiry uncovered “overwhelming evidence” that the state government has failed to implement its own guidelines for community consultation. The report pointed to the use of “glossy, low detail brochures” and unclear maps containing vague, incomplete, or poor-quality information as common shortcomings.
Furthermore, the report heavily criticised an overreliance on external consultants. It found that without coordinated purpose, language, and design, community consultation can devolve into mere “box ticking” and appear “tokenistic” to the public.
Susannah Aumann, a resident of Mont Albert, shared her experience with feedback on a level crossing removal project near her home. She described the process as “gaslighting” and a complete waste of time. While not opposed to the rail trench itself, Aumann expressed unease due to the lack of concrete details regarding its size, design, and proximity to the street.
“I remember at one point, I just really begged them, please be honest and upfront with people about what is actually open for feedback and what isn’t,” Aumann recounted. “The focus was really more about creating a positive perception of the project, rather than engaging honestly with people about what the impacts of the project were going to be.”
Frustrated by her experience, Aumann was among over 100 individuals and organisations who submitted recommendations to the inquiry.
Key Recommendations for a More Transparent Future
The report’s 28 recommendations aim to foster a more open and honest approach to community engagement. Key among these are:
- Banning Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs): The use of NDAs should be prohibited, except in circumstances where confidentiality is “genuinely required or requested” by participants.
- Meaningful Feedback Loops: Seeking feedback should only occur when it can be practically used and considered, rather than as a mere formality.
- Accountability for Consultants: External consultants must be held to the same transparency and accountability standards as public servants.
- Strengthening Engagement Guidelines: The practical application of engagement guidelines needs to be bolstered to ensure that consultation occurs early, transparently, and with a clear purpose.
In the report’s foreword, Labor MP and inquiry chair Ryan Batchelor emphasised that rushed, narrowly framed, or poorly communicated engagement can “undermine trust and lead to disengagement.” He stressed the importance of strengthening the practical application of engagement guidelines to ensure these processes are conducted effectively.
Ongoing Concerns and Political Scrutiny
These findings emerge as the state government continues to solicit feedback on draft maps for Melbourne’s activity centres, detailing building heights, boundaries, and other features. However, an analysis by the Victorian opposition of online consultation for the Blackburn activity centre in Melbourne’s east deemed it “deficient.” The opposition argued that the use of leading questions and restricted response options meant the consultation “should not be relied upon as meaningful evidence of community input into planning decisions.”
Concerns about the quality of community consultation have also surfaced within Whitehorse Council, where councillors were set to debate a motion calling for “genuine” community input into planning decisions. Opposition planning spokesperson David Southwick labelled the consultation for activity centres a “complete sham,” asserting that “Under Labor, Victorians have no voice, no choice and decisions about the future of their local community are being forced upon them.”
The Victorian government has a six-month timeframe to formally respond to the inquiry’s recommendations. A government spokesperson indicated they would respond “in due course” and encouraged continued community involvement in the consultation for draft activity centre plans, noting that “extensive community feedback has helped to shape plans to build more homes close to train and trams.”
