Planning stakeholder engagement in Australia

An engagement plan should explain the decision people can influence and how their contribution will reach the person making it. The choice of meetings, surveys or workshops follows from that purpose and from the people who need to take part.

## The promise to participants

The International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) Spectrum of Public Participation distinguishes levels of participation and the promise made to the public. Its use requires an honest account of the influence the decision-maker can offer.

If a decision has already been made, explain what remains open. Asking for views on a settled matter without making that boundary clear gives participants a different expectation from the process the organisation intends to run.

## Different bodies make different decisions

In energy, the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), Australian Energy Regulator (AER), Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) and Essential Services Commission of South Australia (ESCOSA) have distinct functions. AEMO operates markets and power systems and undertakes planning; the AER regulates energy markets and networks; the AEMC makes energy rules; and ESCOSA regulates essential services within its South Australian remit.

Consultation needs to make the relevant body’s authority clear. A participant should be able to tell whether the question concerns a rule, a regulated proposal, a planning assumption or another decision.

The AEMC’s rule amendment process includes public consultation and publication of relevant documents. Preparing to participate requires reading the particular consultation paper, identifying the questions and deadline, and supplying evidence that addresses the proposed change.

## Participation and access

Identify people directly affected by the proposal as well as organisations with a broader interest. Meeting times, transport, language, accessibility and confidence in formal processes can affect who takes part. A single online survey or public meeting may not reach everyone whose experience the decision-maker needs.

The method should suit the question. A facilitated discussion can examine options in depth; a submission process can collect detailed written arguments; a survey can test defined questions within the limits of its sample. The method and its limitations belong in the eventual report.

## Analysis that retains the reasoning

Group responses by issue while retaining the reasons, conditions and disagreements within them. The decision-maker needs to know why participants favour or oppose an option, not only how many comments were assigned to a theme.

The community support article explains how to describe the strength and limits of evidence about wider views. That question deserves separate treatment from the practical task of organising participation.

## Reporting the decision

Participants need an explanation of what was decided, how their input was considered and which matters remain unresolved. A response can explain why a suggestion was not adopted without implying that the contribution was ignored.

Where delivery passes to another team, use the handover guide to carry forward the commitments that remain to be fulfilled.