I am about to break my indication that I am unlikely to post again until after Jen’s death. I am bored to death in this Regis joint filled with old codgers with assorted disabilities. How many I will write is another question.
I have been thinking about Nicholas Gruen’s sortition proposal: a third house of Parliament chosen by lot. Nicholas has written several articles on this subject, most recently earlier this year. Nicholas thought a strong cross-bench might force such a proposal on a minority government. As we now know, Labor ended up with one of the strongest Lower House majorities ever achieved. Although Labor may still need cross-bench support in the Senate, at least where the Coalition doesn’t agree with them, that is unlikely to occur with Nicholas’s proposal. You can guarantee that Labor and the Coalition WOULD agree to oppose such a proposal
I certainly agree with Nicholas about citizen assemblies. These are gatherings of people chosen by the organisers (presumably in a random manner – in that sense not unlike Nicholas’s idea) and making recommendations to the general community , frequently in the run-up to referenda . I participated in the citizens’ assembly in the lead-up to the 1999 Republic Referendum. Participants were addressed by a large number of experts on both the Yes and No sides of the argument. A strong majority ended up convinced by the Yes argument, but that didn’t stop the Referendum from crashing and burning spectacularly. All States and Territories (except the ACT) voted No, exactly like the 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice Referendum. Most citizens probably didn’t even know that this Assembly had met, and it seems that few of those who did were convinced by the opinions of a bunch of random citizens meeting in Canberra. Citizens’ assemblies in other countries have met with similar results. See this article by Ron Levy and this one by George Williams and Geraldine Chin.
As for Nicholas’s sortition proposal, I have two main reservations. The first is that, unless selected citizens are conscripted and forced to serve (which would be outrageous), only selected peope without significant career prospects would agree to serve. Anyone climbing the ladder of a significant profession or trade would be highly unlikely to agree to spend sevral years poncing around in Parliament while their career prospects suffered.
Secondly, selected participants would undoubtedly form themlseves into parties or factions. That is the only effective way of achieving results. Thus, Third House selected by sortition would end up acting pretty much like existing politicians. Nicholas may well have strong answers to these reservations. If so I would love to read them.
Finally, I am not sure that a Third House is even needed. In the long run the cross-benches WILL end up stronger than they are now. A strong cross-bench would introduce the sort of genuine competition of ideas that Nicholas values, as do I. An example of this is the Gillard minority government of 2010-2013. Although some may disagree, I think it achieved quite a few valuabe and lasting reforms that Labor probably would not have introduced voluntarily. Sadly, one exception is that of a carbon price, which was promptly repealed by the Abbott Coalition government.