Using Humour to Engage People in Policy Development Public Consultations

Question: Should we have the right to complain about planning issues if we don’t submit responses to public consultation?

This year, for the first time, the National Planning Framework has been open to public consultation.  It is fair to say that the relevant Minister, Simon Coveney, has been very visible and accessible on the subject.  Is that enough?  Should there have been wall to wall advertising to alert people to their opportunity to submit their ideas? 

In an energy study carried out by The Rural Policy Hub in 2014, it emerged that a single figure percentage of the nationwide public survey population were aware of the then public consultation for the Energy White Paper.  Whilst submissions were apparently unusually high – something in the region of the 80s – the majority of them came from businesses.  But even aside from that profile of respondents, isn’t it a sad indictment of our nation that 80 submissions to a policy document open for public consultation is considered high?

Why is it that we, as a population, don’t submit comments, opinions, ideas, and then at a later stage when a policy is implemented we complain and say it is not fit for purpose?  If we don’t submit our comments in the first place, should we have the right to complain and oppose a policy that has been passed?

Is enough being done to alert us to public consultations?  Launches of consultation documents, ministerial appearances and media calls don’t seem to be doing the trick: so what can do the proverbial trick?

The Rural Policy Hub is convinced that people need to be attracted to a policy document in order to get them sufficiently engaged to read it in the first place.  How can this be done?  One possible way is to add humour to the fray.  However, this is not considered to be ‘proper’ or ‘appropriate’ given the serious nature of policy making.  But given the historic low level of responses by the public to open consultations, does the method of the approach matter as long as it attracts a higher level of engagement?

Using humour to achieve goals can be naïve in some circumstances – Bono’s submission to the UN that humour be used to combat ISIS is an example of such naivety – however when tackling public engagement, perhaps it should be employed on a trial basis to see if participation increases. 

It seems that this approach to policy making is linked to behavioural economics.  This is a stream of economics that accepts that humans are not rational consumers and therefore policies must be designed on that premise.  This premise is in use here already and can be examined in two visionary papers published by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform in 2014 and 2016. 

It will be interesting to see the numbers of returns of comments to the public consultation for Ireland 2040.  Whilst the second consultation for this plan, due in September, will be based on the first set of returns, it is suggested that if they are low, perhaps it could revisit and take a lighter approach?

You still have time to submit a response to the Ireland 2040 public consultation!  The deadline is this Friday March 31st at 12 Noon. See guideline questions here