(2) To help students to be aware of the large number of factors which mustbe taken into account before a decision on a major public project is made.
(3) To give students some understanding of the public inquiry process, itsrole, procedures and what it is like to take part in one.
(4) To help students gain some insight into the viewpoints of a range ofdifferent people from different sectors of the community who become involved inenvironmental and technological controversies.
(5) To give students the chance to practice self-expression and publicspeaking.
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 aguide to the people in the videos. A master copy of these is enclosed forteachers to photocopy copies for students.
Students should also have access to the longer interviews on the video tapes sothat they can familiarise themselves with the viewpoints of key players in thedebate and the range of arguments put forward. The booklets on cost-benefitanalysis and environmental planning could also be made available to studentsfor additional reading material. These tapes and booklets can be put in aspecial access section of your library.
The game as set out here covers four two hour lessons or double periods over 4weeks or longer. It can be condensed or expanded at the discretion of theteacher.
WEEK ONE: (2 hours/periods)
A week or two before the game the students should get a copy of the backgroundbooklet and view the main video. Ideally the students should have theopportunity to discuss the video. In preparation for the game teacher wouldexplain to the class about public inquiries, what is required of the studentsin 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 enoughstudents or a student may take more than one role. Some roles can have morethan one representative for large classes. All roles can be male or female andfemale students should not be put off playing a person who happens to be malein the video. Students should be encouraged to act out their roles and take onthe character of the person they are playing. This helps make the game more funand allows the students to be less inhibited in their presentations.
During the ensuing week/weeks the students should prepare their writtensubmissions referring to the longer interviews on video and the relevantwritten material.
WEEK TWO (2 hours/periods)
The room could be arranged as shown on the opposite page. The appointedCommissioners will tell everyone what order they will speak in (although therepresentatives of Transfield-Kumagai will go first). Then each person will becalled 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 mayvary with class size), and they should not be interrupted. They can give theirsubmissions from their seat. After each submission the Commissioners can askquestions but should not draw attention to flaws in the arguments or askpointed questions. If others have questions they should write them down andhand them to the court clerk. The court clerk will give a copy of the questionto the person it is being asked of and a copy to the Commissioners (this copycan later by made available for the rest of the students to look at).
During the following week students should answer questions in writing. Theyshould 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 willbe shorter than their original submission. The Commissioners could start toprepare 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 therepresentatives of Transfield-Kumagai would go last. There would be no writtenquestions in this section. Submissions should be shorter.
In the following week the Commissioners would write up their findings andrecommendations.
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 inkeeping with those recommendations. The teacher would then encourage discussionon what had happened and how students felt about it. Questions raised mightinclude:
* (a) Did everyone have a fair chance to put their case? Why/Why not?
* (b) Did some considerations/aspects of the controversy dominate the inquiryat the expense of others? Do you think this might be the case in a realinquiry?
* (c) Has anyone taken part in a real inquiry? How did the class inquirycompare?
* (d) How do they feel about the final result? What are the difficultiesinvolved for the Commissioners in reaching a decision?