Executive Summary
This study presents the findings of an independent survey commissioned by the Ministry for the Environment to examine the impact of participation in the Making Good Decisions Programme (MGDP) on the performance of hearings commissioners and hearings committees.
In total, 40 resource management practitioners were surveyed by telephone on their perceptions of hearings commissioners and hearings committees performance across key competency areas promoted by the MGDP.
Key findings included:
Of all the hearings committees appraised by respondents, 76% were reported as showing an improved overall performance as a result of the MGDP.
One of the greatest positive impacts of the training appears to be at the hearings procedural level. Many respondents reported chairpersons as having more confidence in running the hearings and an improved knowledge of the hearings procedure.
The other key performance area where training appears to have had the greatest impact was in questioning skills. The training has obviously assisted a number of councillors, evidenced with many comments being received that questioning is now more focused and effective.
The training areas which appear to have had the least overall impact include matters relating to impartiality, and the decision writing process.
With regard to matters surrounding impartiality, it was commonly reported that impartiality was not in question prior to the training, or that committees were relying on reporting officers to have a greater role and responsibility in this area.
With regard to the decision-writing aspect of the hearings procedure, observations of positive change were less attributable to the training, with many suggesting other factors such as the new requirements under the RMA Amendment Act, and in-house training, contributing to changes in the quality of the decision.
Many respondents consistently described concerns or confusion in relation to the roles and responsibilities of reporting/handling officers in the decision-making and writing process. It was commonly reported that reporting officers still do not understand their role or exert too great an influence over the process, and that in some cases inexperienced councillors rely heavily on planning staff (sometimes junior planners) for guidance.
Overall, it is clear that the MGDP is generally perceived by the 40 resource management practitioners surveyed to have had a positive impact across key competency areas for individual hearings committee members, and hearings committees as a whole.
It is evident that the MGDP has had a greater impact on those less experienced committee members. However, while the changes observed for those more experienced committee members may not be as distinct, the MGDP appears to have provided positive benefits at a more 'subtle' level. This suggests a difference in training needs between the 'inexperienced' and 'experienced' and may help inform future training needs as the MGDP is further developed.
