(2) To help students to be aware of the large number of factors which must be taken into account before a decision on a major public project is made.
(3) To give students some understanding of the public inquiry process, its role, procedures and what it is like to take part in one.
(4) To help students gain some insight into the viewpoints of a range of different people from different sectors of the community who become involved in environmental and technological controversies.
(5) To give students the chance to practice self-expression and public speaking.
Supporters:
representative of Transfield/KumagaiEIS consultant
representatives of Department of Main Roads
optional
- engineering design consultant
- representative of Motorists Association
- motorists
Opponents:
representative of Department of Environment and Planningtransport engineer
Planner
optional
- transport economist
- North Sydney alderman
- representative from Action for Public Transport
- local residents
- environmentalist
- marine biologist
Each student should get a copy of the background information booklet and a guide to the people in the videos. A master copy of these is enclosed for teachers to photocopy copies for students.
Students should also have access to the longer interviews on the video tapes so that they can familiarise themselves with the viewpoints of key players in the debate and the range of arguments put forward. The booklets on cost-benefit analysis and environmental planning could also be made available to students for additional reading material. These tapes and booklets can be put in a special access section of your library.
The game as set out here covers four two hour lessons or double periods over 4 weeks or longer. It can be condensed or expanded at the discretion of the teacher.
WEEK ONE: (2 hours/periods)
A week or two before the game the students should get a copy of the background booklet and view the main video. Ideally the students should have the opportunity to discuss the video. In preparation for the game teacher would explain to the class about public inquiries, what is required of the students in preparation for the game, and what will happen in the actual game.
Roles should be allocated. Some roles can be left out if there are not enough students or a student may take more than one role. Some roles can have more than one representative for large classes. All roles can be male or female and female students should not be put off playing a person who happens to be male in the video. Students should be encouraged to act out their roles and take on the character of the person they are playing. This helps make the game more fun and allows the students to be less inhibited in their presentations.
During the ensuing week/weeks the students should prepare their written submissions referring to the longer interviews on video and the relevant written material.
WEEK TWO (2 hours/periods)
The room could be arranged as shown on the opposite page. The appointed Commissioners will tell everyone what order they will speak in (although the representatives of Transfield-Kumagai will go first). Then each person will be called in that order and when called each person will give their submissions.
Each person should be given about 10 minutes to present their case (this may vary with class size), and they should not be interrupted. They can give their submissions from their seat. After each submission the Commissioners can ask questions but should not draw attention to flaws in the arguments or ask pointed questions. If others have questions they should write them down and hand them to the court clerk. The court clerk will give a copy of the question to the person it is being asked of and a copy to the Commissioners (this copy can later by made available for the rest of the students to look at).
During the following week students should answer questions in writing. They should also have a chance to peruse other peoples written submissions, questions and answers. These could be put in a special section of the library. Based on this information they should prepare a submission in reply which will be shorter than their original submission. The Commissioners could start to prepare their final report at this time.
WEEK THREE (2 hours/periods)
The second hearing can be run in the same way as the first except this time the representatives of Transfield-Kumagai would go last. There would be no written questions in this section. Submissions should be shorter.
In the following week the Commissioners would write up their findings and recommendations.
WEEK FOUR (2 hours/periods)
The Commissioners findings and recommendations are distributed to the class. The teacher could make a decision as Minister, which may or may not be in keeping with those recommendations. The teacher would then encourage discussion on what had happened and how students felt about it. Questions raised might include:
* (a) Did everyone have a fair chance to put their case? Why/Why not?
* (b) Did some considerations/aspects of the controversy dominate the inquiry at the expense of others? Do you think this might be the case in a real inquiry?
* (c) Has anyone taken part in a real inquiry? How did the class inquiry compare?
* (d) How do they feel about the final result? What are the difficulties involved for the Commissioners in reaching a decision?