Two women from Melbourne – Lucy Bradlow and Bronwen Bock – want to job-share in Federal parliament.
The University of Canberra’s Professor Kim Rubenstein is a constitutional law and citizenship expert. For years, Kim has argued federal parliament should allow for this. I asked her a few questions about this exciting development.
Why is this a news story? And why does it matter?
This is news because it is a new initiative in Australia – no two people have ever announced they are planning to nominate to run for Parliament as a job-sharing candidate in Australia before!
According to my research, this matters for two main reasons. These are:
- Representative democracy
- The way power is and should be exercised in parliament.
Job sharing broadens the pool of people who would consider running for Parliament, who may not have before because their lives do not enable them to work full time, or because they have other commitments that mean they don’t want to be a full time politician, but could do an excellent job in joining with another person in doing that role and bringing their own lived experiences into Parliament and being a representative.
This includes people with a disability, whose disability precludes them working full time and people with caring commitments that preclude them working full time.
The statistics are clear that the greatest percentage of people who work part time because of caring commitments are women, so this would open up the possibility of more women putting their hands up to represent their communities.
Also, more men who we want to encourage in a gender equal world to be sharing those caring commitments, and we want those men to also be able to bring that experience into Parliament).
It also includes people who want to live healthier balanced lives, and in that balance want to be contributors to representative democracy.
Indeed, the possibility of nominating to job-share the role of a representative in Parliament would enhance Australia’s constitutionally guaranteed system of representative democracy. Ultimately, the electorate still has to choose or vote for that job-sharing candidate – so like all other candidates this job-sharing candidate must be voted in.
Second, I think job-sharing would assist Parliament and society more broadly re-think how power should be exercised in society. We know that Parliament has not been a healthy institution and while there are excellent steps being taken to improve that culture, another important step would be modelling better forms of leadership and responsibility for exercising power on behalf of a community – whether it be an electorate in the House of Representatives or an entire State or Territory in the Senate.
Lucy Bradlow (left), Professor Kim Rubenstein (centre) and Bronwen Bock (right). Picture: Supplied
You’ve been a supporter of this concept for a long time (long before this story broke!). Can you elaborate on your view that job-sharing candidates are “entirely consistent” with the Australian Constitution? What specific provisions support this perspective?
Yes! I encourage your readers to spend a few minutes after reading this article, to look at my online published piece and the earlier BA piece!
The High Court of Australia has looked at the meaning of Representative Democracy in The Australian Constitution – and sections 7 and 24 have been relied on by the Court to say that the Constitution protects representative democracy, through the words of those sections that confirm that the people must ‘directly choose’ their representatives.
Job-sharing the role of a representative in the House of Representatives or Senator in the Senate fits entirely within and affirms those sections. Indeed, to prevent ‘the people’ from voting for a candidate running as a job-sharing candidate, would be inconsistent with those sections.
Moreover, the Constitution does not prescribe that people vote for a person – they vote for a representative, the office of Senator. You have to be a person to nominate – and each of the parts of the job-sharing candidate would need to fulfil the requirements in the Constitution – including not falling foul of section 44 (they can’t be dual citizens), like any other person deciding whether to nominate to be a representative in Parliament.
What specific changes to the electoral act would you advocate for to facilitate the nomination of joint candidates?
In principle, in my view and from my research, a job-sharing candidate could and can apply now as the Act stands. But practically, the nomination form to run for Parliament doesn’t provide a lot of space for the candidate to fill in their details – indeed, any person with a very long name, or multiple surnames would have difficulty filling in that nomination form.
That practical challenge doesn’t mean they can’t nominate – but it would be more straight forward and indeed a statement of affirmation of the value add of allowing people to consider nominating to run, to provide more space on the nomination form, which is part of the Electoral Act.
Are there any legal precedents or international examples that might inform the feasibility of job-sharing in political roles?
Yes! The idea itself is not new in the world – there has been a lot of attention to job-sharing in Parliament in the UK – in England in Wales, Northern Ireland and in Scotland – but this is a first in Australia.
For a few examples, you can check out what’s being done overseas here and here and here.
How do you think the introduction of job-sharing candidates could impact public trust and engagement in politics, especially in the context of voter disillusionment with major parties?
I think this would be significant in that regard. We have seen such a rise in distrust of politicians, and of those exercising power. There is a growing sense that the main motivation of those in power is to stay in power – and that it is all about those individuals and the parties maintaining their hold – having power over, rather than enabling power.
This initiative conceptually is reminding people more broadly that it is good to share power – and that much good comes from sharing power.
How would you address concerns that allowing job-sharing MPs could lead to “double representation” or confusion within the electorate?
I think this is all about communication – and indeed the current job-sharing candidate is paying attention to those issues in their Frequently Asked Questions about job sharing.
How important is it for job-sharing candidates to have a pre-written conflict resolution strategy? Can you elaborate on how this might work in practice?
Yes, this is something many people ask the job-sharing candidate! What if you don’t agree on everything. Again, this is a good example of broadening people’s thinking about decision making and coming to the best decision – the current job-sharing candidate has been very clear about how they will do this – and their elaboration is one way – but ultimately the electorate will need to be told this to convince them to vote for the job-sharing candidate!
In your opinion, how might the success or failure of job-sharing candidates influence future innovations in Australian political structures and practices?
I think as a society, we must think about the structures that are foundational and influence how we act towards one another, and how our rules are made that govern us in our everyday lives – ie they really do impact on us every day in so many ways.
Our constitutional system was set up in the 1800s for an Australia that is very different to the society we are living in now. Those structures may have provided us with some key democratic principles, but they need to be expressed in the here and now, with expectations from the lives of the people who they govern that are different to those in the 1800s.
I have written about this more broadly in constitutional terms about our multicultural society, about Australia’s relationship with First Nations, and indeed with the Monarchy.
I think enabling voters to think about and decide whether to choose to vote for a job-sharing candidate is the first step in helping all Australians to be active citizens – thinking about the best way to live together in a more harmonious society, and in thinking through the best ways to make the best decisions for our society as a whole.
Ginger Gorman is a fearless and multi award-winning social justice journalist and feminist. Ginger’s bestselling book, Troll Hunting,came out in 2019. Since then, she’s been in demand both nationally and globally as an expert on cyberhate and the real-life harm predator trolling can do. She's also the editor of BroadAgenda and gender editor at HerCanberra. Ginger hosts the popular "Seriously Social" podcast for the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia. Follow her on Twitter.
