We live in the information age or so we are told. This information age has developed, and continues to develop, barriers to the public’s right to know, at many levels of government and society.
Commonwealth draft legislation that supposedly deals with national security directly threatens journalists and whistle-blowers. Fourteen media organisations have made a joint submission to parliament seeking to ensure journalists are protected. After all, it is their job to unearth material that is in the public interest.
At times, material is simply not available. The Tasmanian Liberal Party produced no details of more that twenty policies prior to the 2018 election. Material may be released to so called ‘stake holders’ as with proposed changes to gun regulations in Tasmania. With guns, everyone is a stakeholder.
Even when material is released, the nature of the information package is central to engaging, or perhaps enraging, the public. Advertisers know this. Todd Sampson, a former Ad man, pointed out the obvious when he stated, on the TV show Gruen: ‘I think that emotion does override rational thought’. This was apparent in the election pokies debate. Members of the public need to ask themselves: ‘How does this information make me feel.’ Emotion can warn against manipulation.
Boredom can be an emotional warning. Large volumes of dry data and a technical style lead to people missing out on key facts and skimming through reports.
Ron Morrison recently questioned modelling carried out prior to the increase of Salmon stocks in Macquarie Harbour. He observed: ‘they had a 1,500-page document that said everything was going to be OK… You give it to the average person and they wouldn’t be able to understand it’.
Spreading fragments of information about a key issue, through a large number of documents, is the most common barrier to getting the ‘big picture’. Hyperlinked documents force interested people to go back and forth between laws, policies, plans, maps, reports, news and social media to build understanding.
How many of the public have the time and resources to do this? People need to earn an income, care for families, volunteer and engage in recreation, to lead a well-balanced life. Others are struggling to put a roof over their heads or are just making it from payday to payday. What of the aged and those from language backgrounds other than English? Putting fragmented information in the public domain is not enough. Often it will conceal more than it reveals. It needs to be under public scrutiny in a format that uses straightforward language.
The handling of the proposed development on Rosny Hill by Clarence City Council is a classic example of fragmented information. Their website contains a lot of information. The challenge is to find what is needed.
It was 2010 when Rosny Hill was targeted for development.
On it's official website the 2010 strategic plan had the extract shown above.
Did anybody letterbox you?
Dear fellow electors, did you realise it was your job to scrutinise the Clarence City Council Strategic Plans to divine your future? We now know that it is.
Clarence City Council has its official website, which is quite tricky to search and its Facebook Page, which could be described as cheery, useful for everyday tasks, fluffy and light
In 2011, Clarence City Council produced the Rosny Hill Nature Recreation Area Management Strategy. The community got a hint that the Council wanted development. In a way, there was nothing alarming there because community members and the Landcare group had lobbied for development. Then the council built some trails, that the community loved. Signs too. Were we fooled?
The management strategy had these aims, among many others:
9. Council to explore the market potential for development
consistent with Council’s Planning Scheme and the site’s 🔺
status under the National Parks and Reserve Management
Act 2002.
Moderate-High (priority)
10. The General Manager to pursue any identified
developments in consultation with the State Government. 🔺
Moderate-High (priority)There was a 'walk and talk" for consultation, but no mass mail out, to all the households of Rosny and Montagu Bay.
To find more information on Rosny Hill, it is necessary to read and cross reference a wide range of documents including: Council minutes, the Clarence City Council Economic Development Plan 2016-2021, Annual Reports, Clarence Strategic Plan 2016-2026, Clarence Cultural History Plan 2018-2023.
Recreational? No. Boring? At times. Eye opening? Certainly.
Some weeks ago, a group of Rosny residents received, from Council, the original 2014 Expression of Interest document given to developers four years ago. People have been wondering for years why the proposed resort on Rosny Hill differs so markedly from the ideas expressed in Council’s 2011 management strategy.
On the 26thof March, 2014 the Mercury reported: ‘The maximum area available for building, 0.7ha, was near the two car parks at the degraded area on the top of the hill but developers could extend their activities beyond that as long as they were sympathetic to the nature reserve, Ald Chipman said.’
Yet we find, on page 7 of the Expression of Interest document:
‘Development proposals outside of the two designated development zones
will also be considered provided the proposal remains sensitive to and
addresses the conservation objectives and constraints of the reserve.’
Yes, the text was in bold.
Guest Blogger, Denise Hoggan, has tertiary qualifications in Science and a Masters of Education focusing on Literacy. She has a particular interest in Critical Literacy
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.