Why job-sharing in parliament must be considered

Politics done the same brute and brutal way we have become used to is not really an option as starkly illustrated by the now-screening ABC TV series Nemesis.

We need more than leadership on rotation and policy in retreat to personalities and partisan games of wedge and gotcha. What is called for is a radical rethinking of what we expect from our politicians in the way they represent us in Parliament - whether it be the ACT Legislative Assembly, or the Commonwealth Parliament - and the way they need to engage, and without delay, with the urgent needs of our times.

One way to do this, which Independents for Canberra, and indeed all parties should encourage, is to promote a broader range of people to run for election and a more expansive way of thinking about how best to exercise electoral power.

Power should not be exercised over others, rather we should expect power to be exercised to empower others, and to be a means of enabling better outcomes for the community.

We need to encourage people to think about power differently to the way it has been traditionally exercised. How then do we get a diverse range of people who might be able to do this - to think about exercising power differently?

With so many people in our community working part-time and considering the demands of the work of a politician, a valuable step would be to have two people job-share the role. That is, two people running as the candidate to represent an electorate - whether it be as a representative for Kurrajong, Yerrabi, Ginninderra, Brindabella, or Murrumbidgee or, indeed, federally for Canberra, Bean, Fenner or representing the ACT in the Senate.

Job-sharing has worked well in many other areas of employment, so why not consider it for members of Parliament? I first heard about the idea in 2015 when Sarah Cope and Clare Phipps applied to stand as joint candidates for the United Kingdom general election.

Cope was the principal carer for her two young children, one of whom had autism and Phipps suffered from a chronic medical condition. These scenarios prevented each of them from working full-time. But between the two of them they believed they'd be an excellent representative of their electorate.

While their application was rejected because the relevant legislation described a situation in which parliamentary constituencies were represented by a single member only, the court called on to review the Electoral Commission's decision said: "There can be no doubt about the seriousness of the issue or the fact that job-share is, in many fields, a means whereby diversity may be increased in the makeup of particular professions or roles."

By contrast to electoral legislation in Britain, the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1919, on the face of it, does not exclude the possibility of a senator or member of the House of Representatives being more than one person. Section 163 of the Act simply describes the characteristics that would make a person eligible for nomination. This is also true in the ACT Electoral Act 1992 where sections 103 through 105 do not exclude job-sharing.

Moreover, and importantly, job-sharing in parliament is also fully supported by existing legal frameworks in Australia, including the Sex Discrimination Act and anti-discrimination legislation in the states and territories, the Fair Work Act, and the principles of representative government and democracy prescribed by the constitution.

Certainly, job-sharing would require thought about the precise mechanisms of any arrangement, including to ensure transparency and accountability. But this is something the candidates themselves would need to prosecute to the electorate who would have to first elect them. They'd have to explain to the voters, for instance, how they intend to share the role, but this is not difficult to envisage. Moreover, in working out how they would vote on issues, this is not unlike political parties who determine mechanisms for their approach to policy and legislative decision making. And financially, they would work out how they would share the pay and entitlements of the role.

The legislative, constitutional and policy basis for facilitating job-sharing in parliaments everywhere is strong.

It is well within the power of the ACT Legislative Assembly or the Commonwealth Parliament to address any practical concerns involved. With the specific benefit of facilitating part-time work, shared representation offers a promising additional option for furthering the diversity of representation and extending our thinking about how power can and should be exercised in our democratic chambers. A more representative parliament will be better informed and more sensitive to the multiple needs and interests of the public. It will also have greater legitimacy.