Hot
Topic Archive
June
2005
Print version
Consultation
- a pain or pleasure?
By
Andy
Fryar
Over
the past month, many of you will have witnessed the
debate in the OzVPM newsgroup, surrounding newly introduced
procedures for the undertaking of volunteer police
record checks (PRC) here in my home state of South
Australia (SA).
The
new measures are the result of a comprehensive review
of police check procedures here in SA, and while the
new system does contain many positive elements, it
also dictates that volunteer involving agencies can
no longer directly sight and sign off on a potential
volunteer's identification as part of the PRC process.
Instead people wishing to become a volunteer and who
require a PRC must now trundle off to a local police
station, where they will need to produce '100 points'
worth of personal identification.
For
all its good intentions, it appears the new system
is one that is certain to deter rather than attract
increased volunteer involvement.
Not
withstanding the fact that PRCs are only one small
part of an overall screening process, the negatives
of this appear straight forward. Not only do the new
procedures require volunteers to jump through an 'extra
hoop', but for many potential volunteers, particularly
those from lower socio-economic areas, new migrants
or for younger South Australians, there will be real
struggles coming up with 100 points of identification
in the first place, therefore potentially making the
system discriminatory.
However
I don't want to use this forum to debate the pros
and cons of legislation that is specifically relevant
to one state in Australia . Rather I'd like to raise
a few broader questions and concerns that the whole
situation has again prompted me to consider.
Firstly,
one of the saddest aspects of the SA police check
issue is that the new system was the result of at
least a couple of years of consultation with the voluntary
community. I remember personally attending meetings
where Police Department personnel were seeking (and
received) feedback directly from the sector. I've
heard of similar things happening elsewhere too, both
in Australia and overseas.
So
how is it that in spite of a prolonged and multi-tiered
consultation process we still frequently wind up with
documents, legislation and programs that are cumbersome
and not conducive to good volunteering practice?
It
seems to me that consultation too often happens simply
for the sake of project managers, consultants or government
bureaucrats being able to tick the box that says 'sector
consulted', rather than seeking real world opinions
that are genuinely considered as a part of any solution.
In other words, perhaps we should be asking the question
of whether or not 'consultation' is seen as nothing
more than a 'necessary evil' in some arenas?
I've
also been able to observe over the years, particularly
when dealing with governments at all levels, the need
for absolute 'political correctness' in the make up
of consultative committees. I remember being a part
of one particular government advisory body several
years ago, that was so politically correct that it
was completely useless! It effectively became a giant
'rubber stamp' largely because so few people sitting
around the table actually understood volunteerism,
and so they always tended to defer to the route of
least opposition.
Now
before you think this essay is just about being critical
of government, let me also state categorically, that
I've also been a part of groups where a broad range
of dynamic and knowledgeable sector driven people
have been hand picked and invited to give advice on
a whole range of matters, and where in spite of every
good intention by government departments and other
peak bodies, those invited just don't make the effort
to front up to meetings, voice their opinions or give
feedback when required! (.and of course they are then
the first to complain when they don't like the outcome!)
My
point here is really to encourage everyone involved
with volunteerism - those with policy making clout
and those of us 'on the ground' - to take the opinions
of each other more seriously in order to find solutions
that truly benefit all parties.
Now
to get back specifically to the topic of police checking
of volunteers, I wonder why it is that this is such
a dilemma? Here in Australia , I understand that the
changes that have been steadily rolling out around
the country have largely been to fit in with a relatively
new policing strategy called CrimTrac
. CrimTrac is a national database of offenders
that was established in July 2000 to assist police
around the nation to gain better and faster information
about offenders. As a part of its brief, CrimTrac
also process all the PRC's required around the nation.
Now
if we have one standard system of generating PRC's
around the country (which makes a lot of sense) ,
why is it that every state and territory has such
different practices for how agencies and volunteers
must go about applying for a PRC to be conducted?
Surely it's time that governments and police authorities
at all levels, along with an agency like Volunteering
Australia, should get together and find a standard
and commonsense approach to this problem . and maybe
effective consultation and collaboration may be just
the start!
Now
let’s hear what you think?
- Share
with readers the way that PRC's are conducted where
you come from? Is it an effective system?
- Do
you agree with my sentiments about consultative
processes? Are there ways you believe these could
be improved?
- Are
there any other comments you'd like to make about
this point of view?
It's
not too late to...
Respond
to this month's Hot Topic
(Be
sure to add your name, title and organisation to your
message)
Should
this link not open your regular email browser, simply
send your reply to response@ozvpm.com
Read
other people's responses
Print
version
The
contents of this Hot Topic are copyright © 2003
- 04 OzVPM.
You may reproduce this Hot Topic in part or in full
on the condition that the author, source and website
address (www.ozvpm.com)
are quoted. OzVPM copyright
policy
Visit
this month’s ‘Hot
Topic’ on the Energize web site.
|
