Skip to main content.

Appendix 1: Survey Questions

Survey of Practitioners - Making Good Decisions Programme
Performance of Hearing Commissioners and Hearing Committees

Preamble

Introduction and Purpose

My name is Andrew Henderson/Rosalind Day of Boulder Planning (Otago) Ltd, a resource management and planning consultancy based in Dunedin. Boulder Planning has been contracted by the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) to undertake an independent survey on the impact of the 'Making Good Decisions Programme' on the performance of hearings commissioners and hearings committees.

The aims of the Making Good Decisions Programme are:

  • to improve the quality and consistency of decision-making where notified applications for resource consent are concerned
  • to build capacity in local government by providing decision makers with the skills, knowledge and confidence to make informed, well-founded decisions
  • to secure the confidence of applicants, submitters and communities in local decision making processes under the RMA.

This survey of resource management practitioners represents an opportunity for key stakeholders in the decision-making process to provide insights on the extent to which, if at all, the Making Good Decisions Programme has had an effect on the quality of hearings and subsequent decisions. It will allow MfE to obtain an independent and objective assessment of the programme's impact, the programme's merits and whether it has achieved its three aims.

Selection Process

You are one of 40 resource management practitioners selected to participate in this survey based on the following profile:

  • You are an experienced resource management practitioner.
  • You have had at least three years experience before local hearings, and therefore regularly observe the performance of decision-makers (either on behalf of clients or as a consents manager and/or reporting officer within a local authority) in relation to notified resource consent applications.
  • You have regularly attended notified resource consent hearings during 2004, 2005 and 2006. Depending on the outcome of the local body elections in 2004 and the constitution of hearings committees, you may have attended hearings over this period before the same hearings commissioners, thereby enabling you to observe performance over an extended period.

The range of survey respondents provides a good cross-section of resource management experience, practice environment, and geographical area of practice. It is noted that at least three practitioners from the same area have been selected to provide a balanced opinion of how particular hearings committees and hearings commissioners are performing.

Participation Notes

  1. As far as practical, your opinions and observations should be linked to specific councils, hearings committees, hearings commissioners and their decisions. For the purposes of this survey, "hearings commissioners" are taken to mean councillors, community board members and independent commissioners, who are appointed to hearings committees, or who sit as sole hearings commissioners.
  2. A list of respondents will be included in an appendix to our report. Any comment you provide will be recorded and assigned to an MfE owned database. Comments will not be reported in an external document without the source been given anonymity. However, you should be aware that any MfE records are subject to Official Information Act requests and so any comments provided are ultimately discoverable.
  3. Your observations on performance should be drawn from hearing experiences from the beginning of 2004 to the present, keeping in mind that the first round of training workshops commenced February/March 2005.
  4. The scope of the survey is on your experience of notified resource consent hearings and decisions only.
  5. We encourage you to put aside your views on the outcome/results of resource consent decisions, and instead concentrate on the quality of the hearing and decision-making process.

Questions/Concerns

Do you have any questions about your involvement in the survey, or the nature of the survey, that you would like to discuss before we begin?

Survey

Developing Participant Profile

Before we begin with the survey we have a number of questions to ask you to ensure we have a good understanding of your role and experience in relation to decision-making, and to ensure that we are achieving a good representation of roles and experience across survey respondents.

A) Please provide details of your full name, professional title/role, workplace, and location.

B) How would you describe your professional category using one of the following categories?

  • Consulting Planner
  • Reporting Officer
  • Consents Manager
  • Lawyer
  • Surveyor
  • Other (please specify).

C) What type of organisation do you work for?

  • Consultancy
  • Local authority - regional, city/district, unitary
  • NGO
  • Other (please specify).

D) Within your practice environment identified in (C) above, before which council(s) would you regularly attend notified resource consent hearings?

E) For each of the councils identified in (D) above, what is the nature of the hearings panel(s) that you regularly attend before?

  • Hearings committee with Chair (all elected councillors and/or community board members)
  • Sole independent commissioner
  • Hearings committee comprising elected councillors/community board members with independent commissioner(s) acting as Chair or as additional members
  • Panel of independent commissioners only
  • Other (please specify)

F) Which hearings panel(s) identified in (E) above will you be reporting on, and over what time period?

G) For each hearings panel(s) identified in (F) above:

  • what are the names of the Chair/Commissioner(s) and any committee members?
  • has the membership of the committee/commissioner changed over the subject timeframe (i.e. beginning of 2004-present)?

H) Of the Council(s), committee(s), commissioner(s) identified in (D)-(G) above, please confirm which of these you would like to focus on for the purposes of this survey.

Thank you, we can now begin the survey questions. In total there are six key questions along with associated sub-questions. We will deal with each council and committee identified in turn.

For each question we will be asking you to provide a rating on any changes you may have observed on the performance of committee members, chairs, and commissioners. There are two key aspects of 'change' we are interested in, including:

  1. the extent of the change observed, i.e. in your opinion has the degree of change you have observed been minor, moderate or major?
  2. the importance/significance of the change observed, i.e. in your opinion do you consider the change you have observed to be important or significant in terms of the aims of the Making Good Decisions Programme?

Do you have any questions before we begin with the survey questions?

Survey Questions

Question 1

1.1 Have you noticed any changes to the way in which hearings are managed and conducted by the chairperson/or sole commissioner?

a) Yes/no?

b) Positive changes:

  • Confidence - running hearing
  • Knowledge - procedure
  • Skills - questioning
  • Managing and explaining staff involvement during hearings
  • Submitter involvement/inclusiveness
  • Dispute resolution
  • Other (please specify)

c) Negative changes:

Comments

1.2 For each positive change identified, please rate the degree of that change on a scale between 1-10 (with 1 being minor, 5 moderate, 10 major).

1.3 For each positive change identified, please rate the significance of that change on a scale between 1-10 (with 1 being minor, 5 moderate, 10 major).

1.4 Do you have any other comments related to the way in which the hearing is managed and conducted by the chairperson/commissioner?

Comments

Question 2

2.1 Have you noticed any changes to the way in which individual committee members form and put questions to parties? (Please note this question would apply in the case of chairs or sole commissioners although there may be some overlap with Q1.)

a) Yes/no?

b) Positive changes:

  • Questioning technique/style
  • Tone/attitude
  • Effectiveness
  • Distinguishing facts, assumptions and opinions
  • Ability to isolate and communicate key issues posed in questions
  • Other (please specify)

c) Negative changes:

Comments

2.2 For each positive change identified, please rate the degree of that change on a scale between 1-10 (with 1 being minor, 5 moderate, 10 major).

2.3 For each positive change identified, please rate the significance of that change on a scale between 1-10 (with 1 being minor, 5 moderate, 10 major).

2.4 Any other comments related to the way in which individual committee members form and put questions to parties?

Comments

Question 3

3.1 Have you noticed any changes to the impartiality of the chairperson/commissioner?

a) Yes/no?

b) Positive changes:

  • Appropriate management of the hearing
  • Reducing the risk of being perceived as biased - equal treatment for all
  • Addressing any perceived conflicts of interest
  • The way in which questions are framed
  • Other (please specify)

c) Negative changes:

Comments

3.2 For each positive change identified, please rate the degree of that change on a scale between 1-10 (with 1 being minor, 5 moderate, 10 major).

3.3 For each positive change identified, please rate the significance of that change on a scale between 1-10 (with 1 being minor, 5 moderate, 10 major).

3.4 Any other comments related to the impartiality of the chairperson/commissioners?

Question 4

4.1 Have you noticed any changes to the robustness and clarity of the decision?

a) Yes/no?

b) Positive changes:

  • Submissions addressed
  • Complexity captured
  • Clearly set out statutory tests
  • All relevant issues properly addressed
  • Balanced evidence
  • Reasons specified
  • Summary of evidence presented
  • Decision included appropriate conditions
  • Other (please specify)

c) Negative changes:

Comments

4.2 For each positive change identified, please rate the degree of that change on a scale between 1-10 (with 1 being minor, 5 moderate, 10 major).

4.3 For each positive change identified, please rate the significance of that change on a scale between 1-10 (with 1 being minor, 5 moderate, 10 major).

4.4 Any other comments related to the robustness and clarity of the decision?

Comments

Question 5

5.1 Are you aware of whether committee members, chairs or commissioners have been on the Making Good Decisions Programme training? (Please note, confirmation of training can be provided if required.)

  • Yes/no?

5.2 If training has occurred, has it made a difference in your opinion to the overall performance of the hearings panel (as a whole, as well as individual committee members, chairs, commissioners) in relation to decision-making?

5.3 If training has not occurred, can you think of any other possible reasons for the changes you have observed?

  • In-house training
  • Changes in appointments to hearings committees
  • Changes in delegation
  • Changes in role of council staff
  • Personalities involved
  • Other (please specify)

Question 6

6.1 Overall, can you think of any other roles associated with the hearing and decision-making process where training needs to occur?

a) Yes/no?

b) If yes, what roles?

  • Chairperson
  • Commissioners
  • Consultants
  • Key submitters
  • Committee secretaries
  • Reporting officers
  • Expert witnesses
  • Other (please specify)

6.2 For the roles identified in 6.1 above, in your opinion what training needs to occur?

  • Decision-writing
  • Plan decision-making
  • Tikanga Maori
  • Other (please specify)

Thank you for your time and participation with this survey. The results of the survey will be used by the Ministry to evaluate the performance of the Making Good Decisions Programme. Would you like a copy of the report?

[ ]