Randwick Council asks community to make decision on smoking ban
Bus Shelter Sydney
Is there any difference in the case of Randwick City Council? Instead of the elected representatives of Council making a decision on this issue, a public consultation will take place, with the community asked to complete on-line surveys and to suggest the ways that the smoking ban in bus shelters, if enacted should be enforced. So the community is being asked not only to not only make the decision on whether a smoking ban, but also to come up with the policy on how to administer.
Randwick City Council have set up a site on Bang the Table, a company which charges Councils, Governments and developers for hosting community consultations and are asking the community to register their views on the site.
Randwick City Council’s move highlights an increasing trend at the local government level. Communities have asked Council’s to be more open and transparent for decades, concerned about backroom deals and lack of information. Now, the principles of open government and the benefits of technology are encouraging a movement where “community consultation” is starting to take place on policy issues like carbon pricing (at Federal level) and smoking in bus shelters (at Council level) where the public would normally expect our democratically elected representatives to make the decisions.
Gillard clearly thought a Citizen’s Assembly on carbon pricing would be a popular policy, but she was wrong. The belief that you cannot be criticised if you give the decision back to the people has been debuked. There are many areas of policy, particularly where impact is long-term, that we expect our elected representatives to make informed decisions for us. This is what we elected them to do.
Smoking is a proven health hazard. Research shows approximately 50% of all smokers will die from a smoking related illness. It is not only hazardous to the people who smoke but also to the people who passively inhale the toxins emitted from smokers. Smoking has been banned in airplanes, beaches, pubs, playgrounds and workplaces. Bus shelters provide shelter to public transport users, a large percentage of which are school children and elderly.
Smoking in bus shelters is clearly a health hazard for those who must use the shelter and be subjected to smoke while waiting. The elderly cannot realistically leave the shelter and move away from the bus stop to avoid smoke and nor should they have to. Likewise it is unsafe to ask school children to vacant the shelter to avoid smoke. And all will have no option in a downpour but to inhale if a smoker decides to light up.
So what are we to make of Randwick City Councillors inability to make a decision on this issue? Surely they have the information at their disposal to assess the merits of this issue and they are also likely to more informed than the general public of the ways in which Council could realistically enforce a no smoking ban. Do they genuinely not know which way to go and so are looking to the community for help to assess the merits of a ban? Or are they abrogating from the very role they were elected for?
What are we to make of politicians who ask us to make policy decisions? And to give them implementation strategies? Is this what the community is asking from our politicans? Is this open and transparent government? Or is this a path that undermines the credibility of politicians? If a ban on smoking in bus shelters is an issue that legitimately requires community consultation what are the issues that do not? Or should all Council decisions be given to the community for input? This would signal a return to participatory democracy rather than representative democracy, a return of the power to the people and away from politicians. What is the role of elected representatives if strategic decisions big and small are given back to the people to make?
As we wrestle with these questions, there is another current day dilemma with on-line consultation, and that is the question of who is really being consulted. The advantage of on-line consultation is its low cost and accessibility. However the openness of the consultation depends on the awareness of the survey and relies usually on promotion on the Council website, Council advertising in local newspapers and Council newsletters. Therefore, many in the electorate inevitably remain unaware of the consultation being undertaken but at the same time the vested interests in a consultation are usually aware of the process and can mobilise and skew the results of on-line consultation. Councils, in special circumstances, can send correspondence to every household but this is usually reserved for large decision such as rate increases, not policy like ‘smoking in bus shelters’ where the cost of letterboxing everyone would be prohibitive.
Robust representative samples are also difficult to obtain as age, gender, demographic and suburb information cannot be proven. Age, gender and suburb is often requested but is not verified by any means and socio economic data is not usually collected. Older demographics may be poorly represented and sometimes also younger demographics are underrepresented. Age groups like 18-29 year –olds can be less inclined to participate in local government issues by virtue of other more dominant interests in their life.
In municipalities like Randwick with large public housing communities and elderly residents within these communities the issue of access to internet is a problem and it places an additional burden on already disenfranchised sections of the community if we are asking them to make more effort than everyone else if they wish to have a voice. Often, residents without internet access are asked to visit a library or council chamber to collect physical documents, something this community is the least likely to have the capacity to do.
That doesn’t mean on-line consultation is a bad thing, clearly is it the way of the future but it has to be asked, when is on-line consultation appropriate and if used, when is a representative sample required and how will it be obtained?
Julia Gillard has learnt that the public know which issues legitimately require community consultation and which the public expects our elected representatives to do the job they were elected to do. Is Randwick City Council’s consultation on smoking in bus shelters an example of politicians trying to please everyone or is this an issue that genuinely requires community consultation and policy input?
Randwick City Council residents have until the 8th of September to submit their views and implementation suggestions to Council via http://bangthetable.com/nosmokinginbussh...
Do you think a ban on smoking in bus shelters is something requires a community consultation process? Or do you think Council has enough information to make an informed decision on behalf of the community on smoking in bus shelters?
Comments
Max H posts
Amazing that people are reacting so negatively about the opportunity to participate in decisionmaking processes. Research shows that most citizens lack confidence in politicians to make decisions for the public good. When opportunities are provided and we reject them, what are politicians likely to do? These processes attempt to answer the question, "What would citizens be likely to support if they have access to solid and balanced information, time to think about it and deliberate over it, and the chance to scrutinise the experts who have different opinions?" Voting and referendums may be 'representative' but they are certainly not 'deliberative'. There is a different between public opinion and public judgment. The trick is knowing which issues are worth the investment in time, energy and money, and which issues we can entrust to those we vote in.
snowbird posts
Smoke downwind.. Problem solved http://thetruthisalie.com http://fightingback.homestead.com
Cost Conscious posts
What is the cost of this consultation by Randwick Council. It's obvious to me, but maybe not to Councillors that smoking should of course be banned in bus shelters. So what is the cost of getting us to tell them the bleeding obvious? That cost is real money, not just hot air.
Ron Green posts
Smoking and passive smoking are life and death health issues. Governments, including Council's have a responsibility to safeguard peoples' health and minimize risk. Randwick Council should just place a ban on smoking in bus shelters and not depend on a web site for feedback. I for one would not wish to register on the particular web site bangthetable. Who owns it? Is it linked to the development industry as a google search suggests? I do know however those who smoke in bus stops care nought for those around them. They puff their smoke with total disrepect for others and when it is raining fill the covered area with smoke forcing the rest of us out into the wet. Perhaps worse still they drop their buts on the footpath or the storm water gutter as they step onto the bus metres and when that happens in Coogee it is metres from the beach which recieves that stormwater and where people swim.
Max H posts
I don't disagree at all about your concerns about the health risks of smoking and passive smoking. Regarding Bang the Table, it is a highly reputable grass roots company that creates a site to allow citizens to discuss and debate issues of concern with the aim of helping decisionmakers to appreciate public sentiment in making their decisions. Just like we are doing here - but set up more like a facebook page. Very easy to use and an easy way for people to have a voice about that things that matter to them. Definitely no connection to the development industry whatsoever.
Street Corner posts
Dear Max, Thank you for your comments regarding Bang the Table. As we understand it, Bang the Table is a company that provides "pay for" consultations for Councils, State and Federal Governments and for developers. For example the consultation site for the Coogee Bay Hotel, by the developers Oakstand is a Bang the Table site. The owners have a background in government and have also worked as lobbyists, including for developers. Council's, Governments and developers pay a fee to use the Bang the Table platform and it aims to facilitate the community consultation processes undertaken by Councils, Governments and developers. We do not understand it to be a "grass roots" site where the public can debate or raise any issue of concern, rather comment is facilitated on the topic the 'client' has put up. The public consultation platform (Bang the Table) allows debate and feedback on the information posted by the organisation who has paid for the consultation and some of the sites are "white labelled". Bang the Table moderates the comments in accordance with it's code of conduct. On-line consultations are an increasingly popular way for Councils, Governments and developers to conduct public consultations processes and have many advantages. I'm sure we'll see a lot more of them, and Bang the Table, in the future. Streetcorner
Max H posts
Thanks Streetcorner for doing that research. From what I can see the Coogee Bay Hotel is the exception rather than the rule. So I overstated the 'no connection' closing comment. However, I have no knowledge of any allegation that they have lobbied for developers! Almost all of their sites are paid for by local/state govts. I think the point about Bang the Table is that they are not paid to help get the outcome the sponsor wants. They are commissioned to allow a space for community to have dialogue, explore questions, and register points of view. It is much more open and accessible then the conventional 'written submission to Council' type of consultation, or indeed a public meeting. Although the scope of the topic is determined by the sponsor, citizens can initiate new discussion threads related to the topic. I believe that Bang the Table is a corporate member of the International Association for Public Participation, and therefore would subscribe to Code of Ethics. Included in that Code is that consultation processes must be genuine and not simply about rubber stamping a predetermined decision. I agree that Bang the Table and other online forums will be a strengthening trend in community consultation/engagement processes. Max
Street Corner posts
Dear Max, Bang the Table, does not lobby for developers, we were just attempting to clarify the issues raised in the comments made by Ron Green. I think the connection that Ron Green was referring to is that Matthew Crozier and Dr Crispin Butteriss (directors of Bang the Table), owned a business called Duo Consulting Pty Ltd (founded in 2006), which whose property development clients included Rosecorp, Hardie Holdings, Stocklands, Rio Tinto, Crighton & Astonfields. Duo Consulting provided the following services “We utilise our insiders’ knowledge of government priorities and policies to work with your team to develop the best approach to ensure a fast and smooth approval pathway through local and State Government for your project.” The following was a quote from the Duo website "Among his many projects, Matthew has assisted Rosecorp to gain consent for an 1189 dwelling development at Breakfast Point, and is currently providing advice on a 600 dwelling development at Catherine Hill Bay and 300 dwelling development at Gwandalan. He has also worked closely with the Hardie Holdings team on Sweetwater, an 8000 lot development proposed to lie between Cessnock, Maitland and Singleton." However, when the potiential for conflict of interests to develop between Duo Consulting's work for developers and their interests in Bang the Table was reported, the Directors said that they intended to exit their lobbying work and wanted to focus on Bang the Table. There is no suggestion that Bang the Table influences the outcomes of debate on it's platform. Probably the best way to summerise Bang the Table is that they provide a facilitation service for clients, a technological platform if you like that allows it's clients to conduct an open and dynamic consultation process. Streetcorner
Max H posts
Thanks for clarifying. As I understand it they only focus on Bang the Table these days and I would agree with your closing assessment about the purpose and intent of Bang the Table. Cheers Max
Lauren posts
I 100% support Council's being more open and transparent but I also 100% agree that we do not need to be consulted on a smoking ban in bus shelters. It is not the 1930's anymore. We all know now that smoking kills. If Councillors can't make up their mind on this without asking us, heaven help us!
Randwick Student posts
It is a bit like the boy who cried wolf. If Council really wants true consultation with the community they should only ask us to get involved in the 'big issues' if they use it for little issues that people expect Council's to be able to make decisions on, they risk 'burning us out' and reducing participation for the issues that diverse and wide representation of commuity views is needed. Come on guys, smoking should be banned in bus shelters, there isn't going to be any community outrage on this. I think you'll find most of us thought it already was!!!!!!
TED posts
Randwick Council - You don't consult when you build walls and unwanted concrete stairs in Dunningham Reserve but you are running a consultation process on smoking in bus shelters. What I would like to know is, which Councillors voted to go out to consultation on this? I'd like to see if it's the same Councillors who resist any consultation with residents when they want to build things in our parks and take away more open space.
Ricky posts
What kind of leaders have we elected if they can't make a decision on smokin in bus shelters. It's a no brainer. No wonder we can't have a sensible discussion in this country about immigration. We have a leadership vaccum at all levels of government.
Lou South Coogee posts
Give the Councillors a break. They want to ask us what we think, what's so bad with that?
Julia A posts
Coming back to Australia after a holiday the welcome my family and I had was being overcome by smoke from smokers standing outside the doors. It was really bad especially for my youngest who had respiratory problems. The smoke didn't stop there,all along the taxi rank and waiting area the smoke was overwhelming. Smoking in any public space should be banned and the sooner the better.
Rebecca posts
Does anyone here know how toxic the emissions are from busses? And you are complaining about a whisp of second hand smoke? Does anyone even think anymore?
Ciggies make you sick posts
Rebecca are you serious? Does this mean we should allow smoking in workplaces because most people drive to work or catch buses to work and inhale carbon monoxide at some point in the day? No, it doesn't. But by the way, I'm also for electric buses!
Julia A posts
I'm not complaining about a "whisp" it was bad enough for a child to have a coughing fit and continued for the 15 minutes we were waiting for a cab. Luckily people do think..they think about the negative effects smoke has on the body as well as the negative effect butts have on our waterways. Smoking needs to be banned from all public areas.
Nick Baylis posts
There are only four comments on the Bang the Table site. People might be nervous to give personal details to a site paid for by Council I know I am. Council, no smoking in bus shelters for me, smokers have rights to kill themselves but not others.
Max H posts
Curious Nick - what on Earth would you be worried about making comments on Bang the Table? Reprisals from Council perhaps? Are you serious?
Jacky posts
I am all for a smoking ban at bus shelters. Go Randwick Council.
Tiki posts
We need as many people to catch public transport as possible to reduce pollution so please get the dirty filthy smokers to smoke somewhere it doesn't affect us.
Greg Little posts
The tobacco companies will stop at nothing to protect their business i read they are funding a big campaign to stop the governments very sensible laws on plain packaging what other business causes so much death legal it may be but we should ban smoking in all public places and bus shelters are public places
Street Corner posts
Hi All, There has been quite a lot of community interest in this topic, so I'm wondering what you all think about how a ban should be enforced? Cheers Streetcorner, YOUR voice in the community.
Youvebeenhad posts
Thankfully, there is a lot of community interest. I am from Ohio and the ban is incredibly difficult and expensive to enforce. The taxpayers have spent 3.2 million to collect only $400,000 in fines. Out of 88 counties nearly half have completely opted out of enforcement because it is cost prohibitive. The ban is a bust. Now in Ohio 53% want to exempt bars and private clubs from the ban because it just is not working at all.
Street Corner posts
Dear You've Been Had, Thank you for providing that example from Ohio. Do you know the specifics of how the ban was (or is) being enforced? Streetcorner
Smoking Cages posts
I for one thought smoking was already banned in bus shelters. Smokers are afforded the privilege(its not a right) to smoke but they must do so whilst not imposing on other peoples lifestyles. I drink alcohol but when I do other people do not get drunk from it. Their liver is not affected, only mine is. It is my lifestyle choice that doesn't affect anyone else. Smoke if you must but don't do it near anyone else. Making me breathe your 2nd-hand smoke is the same as me sloshing rum in my mouth then spitting it in your direction. How many smokers would sit there quietly and let that happen? Personally I think we should ban non-smoking areas. There should only be smoking areas. You must be in that area to smoke. That way I know where you will be and I can stay away. Kill yourself your way and let me my kill my body my way.
Street Corner posts
Dear You've Been Had, I'm really sorry but one of the staff at Streetcorner has accidentially deleted your very detailed and interesting response on how enforcement works in Ohio. We've had quite a lot of spammers hitting our site with sports streaming ads so he assumed when he saw a US login that it was a spammer. Really sorry about that. I did have the chance to read your comment before it was deleted. If you have a copy of what you posted, it would be great if you could post again. Sorry again. Kind regards Streetcorner YOUR voice in the community
Ohio Bar Owner posts
I answered the question you had for You've Been Had and yes, it was deleted. I'll repost. I can answer Street Corner's question about the Ohio ban. It is complaint driven ONLY. Therefore, if you have a bar in a part of town where you pray you don't get a flat tire, you can rest assure that NO STRANGER will ever stop in that bar. If the regulars in that bar smoke or don't mind smoking, no anti smoker will just "happen" into that bar to call the snitch line. Safe bars in good areas of town seem to be turned in and fined. Of the $3.2 million the State of Ohio spent to fine 939 businesses, 876 of them are family owned bars and private clubs. Once a complaint is filed, the Board of Health comes in and if they see an ashtray, proper signs are not posted or someone is smoking, they slink out the door (unknown to the owner) to write a report of your guilt. You can appeal it in an administrative hearing, however the Board of Health PAYS the "neutral" hearing officer. Once you lose that (and you will), you can spend the money to take it to court. We have. Two different courts ruled that once the owner follows the law and asks people not to smoke, the smoker should be fined, not the owner. The Ohio Attorney General appealed the latest court decision. Oral arguments will be heard on it 08/19. The boards of health will have to approach the smoker who's been drinking and they DO NOT want to do that. They've said so in print (newspapers). The 41 of 88 counties who have opted out of enforcement have 2 full time state of Ohio employees covering the vast territory. There are virtually entire counties who are allowing smoking while those of us who own a safe bar in a nice neighborhood in the CAPITAL county of Ohio have the health dept. up our rears!
By submitting your comment you agree to our community agreement / terms of use.