The inner-north suburb of Dickson is almost a bustling town centre in its own right. It will inevitably become more developed and more densely populated, particularly when the city's proposed light rail is operating. Indeed, the light rail plans depend on Dickson becoming an important hub that is backed by a substantially larger population than it now has.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The ACT government has already shown how crucial it believes the precinct is for north Canberra, and that it is willing to wait to get the design of Dickson's master plan right. Back in May, the Environment and Planning Directorate made the bold decision to scrap a large development – which included two supermarkets and 140 apartments, many of which had already been sold – because the proposal lacked "functionality and aesthetics". It was a welcome decision, contrary to the common narrative of town planning elsewhere in Australia, wherein local councils regularly appear willing to rubber-stamp the ill-thought-out proposals of wealthy developers.
Yet while Dickson's ongoing development may be inevitable, it is also inevitable that local residents will oppose much of it. Last week, the government announced it would apply to change the territory plan to allow up to 200 dwellings to be built on derelict land to the east of Dickson's centre. This neglected area – the largely unused site of the Salvation Army and the long abandoned Downer Club – needs to be revitalised. Nonetheless, despite the government scaling back drastically its plan from an initial 850 homes, its announcement angered three local residents' groups.
Urban development rarely seems to take place any more without at least one interested party decrying a "lack of consultation". By rote, opposition political parties make the same accusation about most government decisions. This isn't to say that consulting interested parties is unimportant; it's a crucial way of gathering information that can help government decision-markers avoid regrettable errors. But voters are wrong to believe that, when governments consult communities about policy or planning decisions, they invite those communities to become decision-makers themselves. That is not how representative government works. Nonetheless, complaints about "lack of consultation" have become an ubiquitous part of public debate. (Ironically, so have complaints about "lack of leadership" within government.)
The residents' groups aggrieved by the latest Dickson decision may have valid criticisms. The main problem, however, appears to be a misunderstanding about the "consultation" process itself. Ministers and senior officials will often promise to listen to everyone, and lend the false impression that their final decision – be it on a development or a policy decision – will be based on community consensus. Yet consensus on these decisions is regularly impossible to achieve.
What would best avoid unnecessary anger is open communication from the start. A minister, or a senior official making a decision, should be blunt. If they have already decided what course they will take, they should not treat the community as fools by running sham consultations and asking for views in which they are uninterested. Likewise, if they are open to listening to people's views, they should request them – but, where possible, make clear which parts of the decision are unresolved. Government is not about pleasing everyone and most voters are well aware of it.
