4.0 Discussion
4.1 Key Observations
A number of key observations can be drawn from the results of the study. Overall, across all subject panels appraised by respondents:
- The highest proportion of positive change was observed in chairpersons/commissioners in the area of hearings management and conduct, and in individual committee members in the area of questioning.
- The three most commonly reported improved performance areas with regard to hearings management and conduct, included confidence in running the hearing, knowledge of the procedure, and ensuring submitter involvement.
- The three most commonly reported improved performance areas with regard to questioning included the overall effectiveness of questioning, ability to isolate and communicate key issues, and questioning technique and style.
- Other positive changes observed in chairpersons/commissioners were in the area of impartiality, and hearings panels as a whole in the area of decision quality. These other changes were represented by a lower proportion of subject panels, which may also reflect a degree of pre-existing comprehension and ability in these areas.
- Generally, respondents viewed the more experienced chairs and independent commissioners as having exhibited less change overall given they were operating at a high level prior to training. In these cases the training was viewed as 'fine-tuning' and 'formalising' existing procedures, conduct and knowledge surrounding the hearings and decision-making process.
- Generally, the positive changes observed in hearings management, conduct, questioning, and impartiality were directly attributed by respondents to the learnings applied from the MGDP.
- Generally, the positive changes in the quality of the decision were less likely to be directly attributed by respondents to the learnings applied from the MGDP. Other factors were often presented such as the RMA Amendment Act, in-house training programmes, and the role and responsibilities of reporting officers.
- There appears to be a great deal of variation in practice, and a level of confusion across local authorities, with regard to the appropriate roles and responsibilities of reporting officers/handling officers/planning advisers in the decision-making and writing processes. There is some suggestion that this is a key training need.
- Given the procedural changes in hearing conduct that many panels are reported to have implemented as a direct result of the MGDP training (for example, reporting officers not being present during deliberations) many reporting officers feel that hearings panels now need further training in the area of decision-writing skills.
4.2 Positive Impacts of the Making Good Decisions Programme
Overall, it is clear that the MGDP has made a positive impact on the performance of hearings commissioner and hearings committees across New Zealand.
The majority of respondents interviewed were aware of the MGDP and whether the subject hearings panels had attended training and attained certification. 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. This often resulted in clear practical changes in hearings procedure immediately following training.
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.
Notably, the MGDP is only one year old. Consequently, many councillors have had little opportunity to apply their training in formal hearing situations.
4.3 Potential Limitations of the Making Good Decisions Programme
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 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.
Concurrently, there is some evidence to suggest that some of the guidance in the MGDP training workbook, particularly in relation to the roles and responsibilities of the reporting officer in the decision-making process and appropriate hearing layouts, have resulted in immediate practical changes in hearings procedure which have not necessarily worked well at a practical level in terms of staff resources and roles and responsibilities surrounding the decision-writing process. This suggests that the MGDP training would also be beneficial at a council planning management level to ensure the guidance implemented can be 'translated' to suit the particular practice reality and needs of the particular council.
