Beyond Federation Conference

“Visioning A Future Without State Governments”

Mooloolaba

10-11 July 2004

"Think global, act local:

but at what level do we decide what to actually do?"

Michael Yeates

Convenor

Public Transport Alliance

Brisbane

Abstract: While people are increasingly aware of what they should or could be doing, and why, it remains difficult to initiate change through government and professional structures that resist change. It is similarly difficult for individuals and small local groups to influence government such that "new" ideas can be tested or trialed and then evaluated.

The current Australian government system with a "weak" federal system and strong states tends to result in inter-state competition mainly on economic rather than on an intellectual or community developmental basis or on pursuing a consistent and national policy position. Local government rarely features. Yet it is at the local level that actions can be implemented if permitted. The move to larger local governments is therefore of concern if the outcome is reduced opportunity for community-led innovation and democratic participation. The paper will address the issues of local governance and participation illustrated with particular examples from SEQ housing, urban development and environmental perspectives related directly to transport policy and projects.

Introduction:

At the turn of this new century, 100 years after federation, we have much better access to education. We also have much increased awareness of issues primarily from the multiple resources of the various information media and from the personal experiences of people who are now able to travel further and more often. Many people are aware of what they could or should be doing as individuals for their own interests as well as for the wider community. In many cases, carrying out these intentions is made difficult by current behaviours that are the result of previous and current government policies. This paper will review in broad general terms the roles of the different current levels of government in Australia in the context of a more democratic perspective. It will then address some alternative ways that the governance may be addressed using examples primarily from Southeast Queensland (SEQ). Finally some possibilities for implementing some “new ways” will be explored.

Federal government:

Australia clearly needs a strong federal government through which common policies, regulations and standards are promoted, debated, implemented, and evaluated in the classic policy cycle. The current situation where state standards vary considerably eg for health, education, roads, and housing policies and implementation, is clearly untenable. The prolonged and still unresolved debate about managing the Murray-Darling River system is an excellent example of the folly of weak national government and policy (see for example Kellow,1992). Another is the national transport system where despite the apparent need for national road rules and road design standards, each state has its own version. The three different rail track gauges are a constant reminder of the need for national standards. Another example is the problem facing children and their parents if they wish to transfer between states where the curriculum and even the starting ages are still not similar.

While it is clearly not sensible to have the same type of housing in Hobart, Brisbane, Alice Springs and Darwin, it is equally not sensible to have inefficient types of housing being subsidised and therefore promoted, encouraged and subsidised eg by the first home subsidy. These local differences are not important national policy issues. However, climatically responsive and energy efficient housing and building is in the national interest compared with the current situation where state electricity suppliers promote increased consumption by promoting air conditioning during heat waves. There is a similar national debate about the sustainability of burning wood in open domestic fireplaces in urban areas given the pollution and health impacts. The vexed questions of personal transport, oil depletion and congestion and spatial allocation provide a similar test of ideas of “sustainability” when sustainable housing is provided with double or triple garages in car-dependent urban planning and development projects.

Thus it is the “common” or national issues which the federal government and its policies should “govern” and regulate. It seems the most widely tolerated if not best method of regulation is via taxation based on user-pays principles if equitable alternatives are provided. Thus it would seem that for most purposes, the national government should set national policy and taxation, then distribute the funds to ensure implementation of policy is in compliance with the national interest and international obligations. As well as raising issues in regard to world trade and “free” trade agreements, this would of course address international obligations eg the “greenhouse” issue and global warming even if regarded as problematic. By comparison, the “hole in the ozone layer” appears to be resolved by a universally accepted ban on certain chemicals eg some refrigerants and pressure-pack propellants.

It is here that the “think globally” mantra is of value as it encourages a view beyond individual or local interests and a focus on national and international and global interests. The questions to be asked are “what will encourage the federal government to take action on national policy issues?” and “how will these issues be identified and made into policies?”. And it is here too where for example, the full cost of international trade including all externalities (eg the impact of agriculture on the fertility and water systems of Australia) should be assessed and clear policy made.

State government:

In many ways, the roles of state governments may therefore be problematic. From the preceding analysis of the role of the federal or national government, the next level down is essentially a provider of services that comply with national, not state, policy and are funded accordingly. Given the current historical origins of the framework of state governments in Australia, there is little need for policy at state level except that which is locality responsive. This implies that these decisions should be made at a more local level than is possible under consistent ie state, policy. A reasonable conclusion then is that the states should be much smaller. Arguably, they should reflect catchment management and ecological precinct principles. Clearly, even our two small states, Victoria and Tasmania, show conclusively the problems that are inherent in state governance over diverse resources and interests. Attempts to use various consultative or participative mechanisms have failed to overcome the apparently polarised interests. In these cases, the inherently adversarial nature of attempts to address the conflicting views of management of rare if not unique assets is obvious even if only segmented to as few as the following five interests ie natural assets (eg logging), tourism, agriculture, mining and urban interests. Yet each of these interests is in conflict within the areas that might be considered dominated by one of the interests. The continuing conflicts over “management” of World Heritage and similar areas from the Great Barrier Reef to the West Coast of Tasmania are a useful reminder.

For the larger states and especially Western Australia (WA) and Queensland, the latter the most decentralised in Australia, these types of conflicts are inherently destructive of national and state unity. Examples include the role of water management on the Darling Basin, and natural bush clearing, both of which are, arguably, both national and local/regional issues, rather than state issues. They have become state issues purely by historical chance rather than by rational decision. A similar view can be taken of transport. Clearly, with very long distances, both WA and in particular given its highly decentralised population, Queensland, should have the most efficient forms of transport as a very high priority. Interestingly, in comparative terms, both states used to have very extensive rail systems.

However, following state level policy to improve regional roads, the priority spending for political reasons has been on roads. Many rail lines have been closed or grossly under-maintained. Not surprisingly therefore, a dramatic increase to almost total dependency on road transport ie cars and trucks, has followed. The national road system has it is said, been under-funded. Yet as the Deputy Prime Minister has recently stated in response to claims that the federal government should be funding national roads in SEQ, it is not in the national interest for the federal government to fund national roads that end up congested with commuters and local traffic. And of this, there is no worse example in Australia, than in SEQ, on the national highways leading into Brisbane.

This outcome is itself a direct result of state government attempts at regional policy and is therefore evidence that the attempts by the state government to implement regional planning processes have clearly failed. SEQ has been the subject of intensive regional and urban planning commenced by the Goss state government in the late 1980s. Similar processes that aim to integrate urban and transport planning in a “holistic” manner have subsequently been implemented in the form of local transport plans in most of the major cities in Queensland including Cairns, Townsville, Mackay, Rockhampton, Hervey Bay and Toowoomba as well as SEQ.

The result of these processes has reflected the same problem as the funding of national roads, that is, roads that are of state importance are improved, but immediately generate local traffic, primarily cars and trucks, because there are no comparative alternatives. It is here for example that the failures can be demonstrated by contrasting the level of service, or “safety+convenience” (Yeates,2000), for cars and trucks, with that provided for public transport users, cyclists and pedestrians (using the Pedestrian Council of Australia definition which includes people with disabilities). It is hardly surprising that, if the road system is improved for cars and trucks, people then choose to use those modes. Conversely, if the road system and infrastructure is improved for public transport, cycling and walking, people increasingly choose to use those modes rather than their car. And where the service for rail and ship freight has been improved, it is increasingly used rather than relying on trucks and aircraft.

But, as continues to be demonstrated in debate over national funding of national roads, state governments tend not to reflect the wishes, concerns or needs of the local community. They also tend to ignore national and international interests and obligations. Continued emphasis on car and truck transport by the state governments promotes the continued dominance if not dependency on cars and trucks as does continued criticism of the federal government for not funding national and other roads (eg for not spending all of the fuel tax on roads). The state governments assume the need for more roads then promote it, but without alternatives, and without regard to long term impacts. Even the most recent local and regional transport plans reflect a bias supporting continued transport provision based on current and projected use known as “predict and provide”. In some cases, there is explicit recognition of the need to control if not eliminate growth in car use in urban areas (eg Metropolitan Perth). This is not being promoted or implemented in SEQ. The primary reason is a lack of opportunity for committed involvement of the local community and local government (Yeates,1998) in decision making processes that appear able to coerce acceptance of the state imposition of regional and state policy eg in SEQ, the Integrated Regional Transport Plan (IRTP) by means of political rhetoric (eg promoting policy and plans without implementation) and by funding conditions (eg requiring compliance with state rather than regional or local needs or requirements).

Local government:

It is commonly suggested that local government is where the work gets done, and where the roads, rubbish removal, etc are dealt with. It is also where residents can, according to Brisbane City Council, “have a say”. However, as has been shown above, this is not at all clear in practice. Brisbane is a particularly interesting example of local governance in that each councillor now represents some 22-25000 people and the city population is considered to be close to 900,000. “The 1924 City of Brisbane Act abolished two cities, six towns and ten shires to create a single council governing 1,220 square kilometres” (source: ourbrisbane.com). Increasingly, and despite economic and efficiency pressures to amalgamate smaller local authorities in both urban (eg Melbourne) and regional (eg towns with surrounding shires) areas, Brisbane appears to be an examplar of the loss of the “local”.

Without appealing to romantic notions of the “good old days”, it is very clear that many of the local, community structures that provide support, spaces for discussion and debate, and what David Engwight has described as “personal exchange opportunities”, have been lost or have been removed or reduced. Whereas smaller shire and local authorities have been criticised as parochial or representing local or specific interests, increasingly it appears it is community debate and decisions about these local, specific and parochial interests in particular that have been removed from the community by local government. Examples include the loss of character or traditional housing and housing patterns in favour of “new” housing and urban consolidation, the approval of large “regional” shopping centres to replace local shopping, and the increased size of schools and their catchments to replace a choice of smaller “local” schools. Consequently, with the increased population and increased travel necessary due to the greater spacing between destinations, new or improved roads for more cars and more trucks “become” necessary.

While each of these has obvious benefits, and these are well promoted, the impacts are rather less obvious, and seldom if ever promoted. Indeed it may be argued that, in an urban growth economy based primarily on car sales, building construction and civil engineering, it is almost regarded as treason to question or criticise new development or its negative impacts. Yet many of the impacts are contested or problematic including the so-called externalities, which in general are little more than impacts that current systems have not as yet agreed how to assess, quantify or cost. If this is the case, then it is critically important to assess why, and whose interests were or are served by so doing. It is also necessary to consider who actually makes the decisions in local government.

Pseudo democratic governance?

Cognisant of such criticisms of current governance, governments at all levels have introduced new processes that are implicitly or explicitly considered to promote and increase consultation or participation. The federal government has its “National Network of Area Consultative Committees” (see http://www.acc.gov.au/contact_us/qld.aspx for the Queensland contacts). The Queensland government has its “Community Cabinets” and “Community Engagement” processes. Local authorities have a plethora of consultation and participation processes of the “Have your say” type such as Brisbane City Council’s “Your City, Your Say” (see references). An example of increased participation currently being implicitly promoted is the Maroochy Public Participation Policy (see references). However detailed review both of the policy documents and of the practices shows these “moves” to be subject to both theoretical and practical criticisms. They are a more sophisticated and arguably in many cases more successful, means of providing information transfer, most often from the community to the project proponents or policy or decision makers, and sometimes in both directions ie to and from the community. But, despite the rhetoric, they provide little evidence of a move towards increased community participation in the decision making process.

Thus these moves towards more consultative or participative processes have been subject to critique on the basis that the power to control both the process and the outcomes remains with the proponents. Indeed, there has been little if any evidence that these moves are other than “manipulative” or “non-participation” as described by Arnstein (1969) in her well-known “Ladder of Participation”. According to Arnstein, these are processes where “… the real objective is not to enable people to participate in planning or conducting programs, but to enable powerholders to ‘educate’ or ‘cure’ the participants” (in van der Lee, undated, draft). In reviewing the issues of resource allocation and decision-making processes, van der Lee notes that ideas of increased participation leading to better decision-making are not uncontested. However it is clear from many case studies that the educative component, including issue raising and awareness creation at the individual and local community level, is very effective, as is building of “communities of interests” around specific proposals. However, as previously noted, in policy making, the interest groups that develop around consultation and participation processes usually involve diverse views. The almost inevitable result tends to be a continuance of oppositional if not adversarial political processes and outcomes, with the powerful most likely to succeed, irrespective of the issues raised during the process. If proponents retain the power as Arnstein suggests, it would seem highly likely that their proposals would be adopted.

More recently, investigations have investigated these processes from other than the proponents’ perspective. McCarthy (1999) describes the unethical practices by proponents and their consultants as “consulting violence”. Similarly, proponents and the managers of consultation processes have shown a willingness to resort to unethical and unprofessional behaviours (Yeates,1999) to the point where the credibility of professionals, both inside and outside government departments and agencies is at risk. In terms of both professional ethics (ie codes of practice) and public interest, professional credibility has been further undermined by the apparently inherent tendency of professionals and proponents to give priority to their clients’ requirements (Yeates,2000b).

Very recently, a major Australia-wide survey by The Australia Institute (2004) identified similar concerns. A large majority of those surveyed agreed that the dominant practices of governments and in particular the federal government were coercion, de-funding, denigration, bullying, management of consultants and diversionary tactics and not a move towards more community participation. Collation of investigations such as these suggests these are the dominant practices of governments, their departments and agencies and their consultants, and are both common and normal practices for federal, state and local government and development proponents.

Although the study by The Australia Institute relates to NGOs and the federal government in particular, the issues are similar and just as relevant for other levels of government, and for consultation and participation processes involving individuals, specific interests, local interests as well as NGOs. The following extensive quotation from the summary of the report is therefore both illustrative and informative. It confirms the practices of resistance against, rather than practices supportive of, increased consultation and participation, despite the rhetoric of democracy.

Debate is fundamental to the development of good public policy and a well-functioning democracy. Governments that are open to policy debate enhance their own legitimacy and strengthen the democratic credentials of the nation. Dissenting views are an essential aspect of public debate.

NGOs serve several important functions in the democratic polity. These include:

• creating deliberative forums;

• representing marginalised and stigmatised groups that otherwise have no public voice;

• providing for those most affected by government decisions to be involved in policy formation and evaluation;

• providing a cost-effective channel for consultation;

• promoting a richer public debate by providing information and opinions that would otherwise not be heard;

• helping keep government accountable to the wider community through their connection to NGOs’ broad constituencies; and

• counterbalancing the influence of corporate organisations over government decision making.

These functions do not detract from other institutions of representative democracy but complement and enhance them. Some political scientists have argued that the declining levels of trust and participation in democratic institutions have given rise to a renewed interest in forms of community participation. The legitimacy of NGOs is granted by the communities they represent and it is to these same communities that they must be accountable. Other groups active in policy debates, notably business interests, escape the tests of ‘representativeness’ demanded of NGOs, despite the fact that they are clearly self- interested.

Among NGOs that receive government support, around 70 per cent report that their government funding restricts their ability to comment on government policy. Many commented on implicit constraints on their ability to speak. In the words of three:

• We would be unwise to bite the hand that feeds us.

• The perception is that you toe the line or you risk getting de-funded.

• Peak bodies have had to tread very carefully in terms of retaining funding agreements during the Howard Government.

It is apparent that self-censorship is as effective as explicit contractual prohibitions. It does have a chilling effect, however, wondering whether critical comment may ultimately affect our funding security.

It is widely believed among NGOs that the Federal Government, and to a lesser extent state governments, want to silence public debate. It is clear from Figure S1 that only a small minority of respondents believes that debate is encouraged by the Federal Government (nine per cent), with 58 per cent believing that debate is silenced and 33 per cent believing it is tolerated. State governments are perceived less negatively, with around half believing that debate is tolerated and around a quarter each believing that debate is either encouraged or silenced.

Respondents were asked to express their agreement or disagreement with a number of statements about the role of dissenting voices in Australian public debate. Three quarters of respondents (76 per cent) disagreed with the statement that ‘current Australian political culture encourages public debate’, with one quarter disagreeing strongly. Similarly, three quarters (74 per cent) believe that NGOs are being pressured to make their public statements conform with government policy. Ninety two per cent of respondents said they disagree with the view that dissenting voices are valued by government as part of a robust democracy; 42 per cent strongly disagree. Similarly, 90 per cent of respondents believe that dissenting organisations risk having their funding cut.

The survey responses paint a grim picture of the state of public debate in Australia. Both the survey results and the comments provided by respondents point to a high degree of coercion on the part of Australian governments with respect to the NGO sector. Although frustration is expressed at state governments, it is apparent that the Federal Government is perceived as being especially intolerant of dissenting voices.

This scenario, if valid, suggests a move away from, rather than towards a more consultative or participative form of governance. The questions that then emerge require a review of fundamental and historical concepts and principles of democracy and of their applicability to development of new forms of democracy and governance.

New democracy and governance:.

It should not be forgotten that the foundations of democracy involved the need to resolve conflict in public decision-making if the decisions were not to be made by a powerful leader, but rather by the citizens or, as we might now generalise, “the community”. Thus early democracy involved community debate on a regular basis. It involved those entitled to participate in the debate. It involved a process for making the decisions once the issues to be decided were clarified. Cliesthenes is credited for developing this process in 508BC, at a level of democracy which, if compared to Brisbane’s current processes, was a far more democratic process. Although more people are entitled to vote as a proportion of the population, at the most local level of government, Brisbane people now vote once every four years for a councillor who is to represent every elector in a total electorate of 22-25000 people.

Clearly, there is therefore a necessity to consider how to return the opportunity for people to participate in genuine community democracy at the local level. Indeed, if people are to be encouraged to participate more, then “participative opportunities” must be increased such that decision-making processes about any issues that people wish to involve themselves in allow, rather than prevent, genuine democratic participation. There are examples of how this might work including forms of local decision making in the cities of North Sydney and Fremantle. Clearly, we have to learn how such a system of “local democracy” might work in practice. To argue against this principle is to again raise the critical question as to whose interests are being served.

But as these innovative practices are explored and current practices evaluated, new practices or iterations of current practices suggest that new ways can not only be implemented, but are also essential to protect the democratic ideals implicit in the rhetoric of modern democracies. However, as with other changes, sudden changes (eg the French and US revolutions) may best be avoided. Thus both commitment to, and sufficient time for, learning about and developing new responses to the changes are essential. There is a need to learn how to better make decisions effecting public policy at all levels as for example, Campbell and Duggan (2002) have argued in the context of changing the culture of youth detention centres and their management. The question then becomes one of addressing how to learn better and more democratic processes that increase participation by “the community”.

Three tiers or two?

As noted in the study by The Australia Institute, “representativeness” is often raised as a problem when various forms of interests, interest groups or NGOs attempt to become involved in decision-making processes. If the intention is to ensure decisions are made which best satisfy the public interest, then it is not representativeness or sheer strength of numbers or power to decide that is the crucial issue. Rather it is the process that best alerts most people to the “pros and cons” and then provides a means whereby these are best resolved in the public interest. Arguably, we do not know how to do this with confidence, and therefore tend to rely on criticising attempts to move towards better decision-making processes, while thereby implicitly accepting current practices. In this way, current practices are allowed to continue while learning how to better address issues is prevented or constrained.

One emerging way to overcome such constraints seeks to use trials and demonstrations so the process itself is developed, tested and evaluated rather than continuing a process of ongoing policy debate. Much of the well-known Dutch public policy process relies on relatively simple but crucial national policies with implementation by a series of evaluated experiments or trials, often federally funded. This provides a national process for experiencing and evaluating both the process, and the outcomes, ie a process of iterative, experiential community learning.

From this perspective, the roles of the current three levels of government in Australia and criticisms of current moves towards more consultation and participation suggest that rather than embarking on an endless and contested policy debate, new ways should be implemented as a matter of urgency. These can be developed, trialed and evaluated using more democratic principles to provide more “democratic opportunities” for participation by anyone who wishes to participate. They will also reflect an acceptance of the need to reduce the imbalances in the power currently held by proponents, ie politicians, bureaucrats and their consultants and supporters.

From the above analysis, it would appear therefore that there is a necessity to introduce a “fourth tier” of “local democracy” which, if local government can indeed be made more “local” and more democratic, has the potential to eliminate the need for state governments. Local government would become the site or space for more “democratic opportunities”, ie with local government as the site for “acting locally” in response to global and national “policy”. From this perspective, it would then appear that the limit of the size of local government is not related to population numbers or physical area but to the ability to revive “local democracy” that responds to simple national policy.

To begin to understand how this might work, it is perhaps useful to consider some examples. Currently Australia is heavily dependent on oil and coal. Both are natural resources and, it would appear, exhaustible. It is also argued that the greenhouse effect (and related local pollution) requires changes in management given climate change is at least considered as a risk linked to carbon use. The national government ignores international “obligations” and continues to fund road transport based on oil fuel. It promotes other modes but fails to fund them. What, under current state and local government structures, can individuals and local interest groups actually do to participate in local and state government decision making processes? If as some are suggesting (see for example, Hillman, 2004), a radical decrease in energy-intensive activities using carbon based fuels is urgent, under current governance, what can individuals do in terms of local decision making to address such issues?

A local government that responded to individuals and local interests could undertake a “radical” trial to explore, demonstrate and evaluate by a trial or series of iterative trials, the extent to which other alternatives might be supported by the local population. How many local governments have done this in Australia and to what extent? Where are the evaluations and case studies? By comparison, in 2003, in Europe, over 700 cities undertook “European Mobility Week” activities. Nearly 1500 cities and towns undertook “In town without my car” activities. Many involved permanent changes to the urban fabric rather than temporary changes for the event (ECF 2004). These are cities leading implementation by example using global, European Community and national policy.

Summary:

Consideration and investigation of almost any decision made by local or state governments in Australia will show a lack of consultation and participation in which decision making is also participative. Yet it is at these levels that the “action”, the “act locally”, must take place. If local government can become more participative and undertake implementation to meet the needs of individual and local interests, as well as national and international interests and obligations, then clearly, state governments are potentially superfluous. However, as noted above, it is the ability to provide a move to democracy, not population or physical size, that must determine the appropriate size of the “new” local government, and then, as a consequence, the value and size of state or regional government.

Evaluation of current consultative and participative policy shows that governments in Australia at all levels generally do not provide “democratic opportunities”. Indeed, The Australia Institute report and other studies suggest a deliberate strategy away from providing “democratic opportunities”. Current research and practice suggests that there are few if any examples of practices which provide exemplars of the move towards more participation. However there are many examples where state and local government processes prevent or constrain such a move. To date, the interests served by these constraints are rarely if ever exposed eg by critical evaluation.

Therefore, it is essential to encourage and facilitate a political system that is democratic to allow people to learn how to participate in and evaluate decision-making processes democratically as participants. Links between policy and implementation are most clear at the local government level. It is here that a move towards a return to democracy must commence: by demonstration in practice and by iterative development and evaluation. At the local level, “the community” does not require permission to begin the process, and by beginning the process, constraints and those who support, and those who benefit from, the constraints will be made explicit. Most of the constraints are the direct result of attempts by state governments to develop and implement policies. Yet these policies rarely reflect local and state diversity. Thus it can be argued that reducing the extent of state government towards a more regional government structure may result in a more responsive policy process. But to do that will first require a local government structure that is democratic to ensure that the policy can be implemented and meet local needs.

References:

Arnstein,S.R. [1969]: “A Ladder of Citizen Participation” AIP Journal USA

BCC “Your City, Your Say” (http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/BCC:STANDARD:1348567475:pp=ABOUT,pc=PC_76)

Campbell, S and Duggan, F (2003) “The development of a learning culture in a youth detention centre and its effects on staff and clients” Paper presented at the Juvenile Justice: From Lessons of the Past to a Road Map for the Future Conference convened by the Australian Institute of Criminology and the NSW Department of Juvenile Justice, Sydney, 1-2 December 2003 [http://www.aic.gov.au/conferences/2003-juvenile/campbell.pdf ]

ECF (2004) Towards Sustainable Urban Mobility for Europe: The European Mobility Week. Evaluation and Good Practices of the European Mobility Week 2002 and 2003 European Commission DG for Environment

Hillman, M with Fawcett, T (2004) How We Can Save the Planet London, Penguin UK

Kellow, A (1992) Saline Solutions: Policy Dynamics in the Murray-Darling Basin Hyperion Books

van der Lee, J (undated) “Participative water resource allocation and decision-making in Australia”

[ http://www.une.edu.au/cwpr/Papers/wwcpaper.pdf ]

Maroochy Shire Council MPPP (http://www.maroochy.qld.gov.au/ppp/ppp_policy.pdf )

McCarthy, P (1999) “Professional Responsibility in Integrated Land Use and Transport Planning in Brisbane’s Inner Northern Suburbs” Presentation to the Brisbane Development Association, 6 May 1999, Brisbane

The Australia Institute (2004) Silencing Dissent: Non-government organisations and Australian democracy Discussion Paper Number 65 June 2004 [http://www.tai.org.au/Publications_Files/DP_Files/DP65.pdf ]

Yeates, M (1998) "Getting it right ... but who and what do we ask?" Proceedings of 22nd Australasian Transport Research Forum Sydney

Yeates, M (1999) “Bullying ... but who bullies who? The destruction of public interest in professional ethics in South East Queensland transport policy and project consultation” Proceedings of Responding to Professional Abuse, The Third International Conference, Beyond Bullying Association Inc, 2-3 July 1999, Brisbane

Yeates, M (2000) “Road safety : for all road users?” Proceedings of Road Safety, Research, Policing and Education Conference 2000 Brisbane [http://www.yeatesit.biz/transfiles/rsafe00papera.pdf ]

Yeates, M (2000b) “Politicised technical advice ... The death of professional credibility?” in Proceedings of “The Travel Bug”, Transportation 2000, AITPM International Conference, 7-9 June 2000, Gold Coast, Australia