26 September 2023

Sharing the load: Why can’t two people represent an electorate?

Start the conversation

Kim Rubenstein* says job sharing has been widely adopted as a way of enhancing women’s participation in the workforce, so why not in politics?

Photo: Rich Legg

We can forget just how groundbreaking Australia once was when it comes to gender equality.

In 1902, it was the first country in the world to give women the vote and the right to stand for Parliament — although it took another 41 years for that to occur.

Since Federation, just 132 women have been elected to the House of Representatives.

In the leadup to last year’s election, of the 1,056 candidates nationally, about one-third (341) were women.

In total, 46 women were elected.

Things look much brighter in the Senate, with 50 per cent representation — an all-time high.

It’s something to celebrate.

But even with this, our Federal Parliament is still not reflective of the gender balance of Australian society.

Quite plainly, there appear to be systemic blockages to true representation.

To get to a fuller understanding, we need to look at what is going on in the broader economy.

While women make up 46.9 per cent of all employed Australians, just under half of them — or 21.6 per cent — are working part-time.

To look at it another way, women make up 37 per cent of all full-time employees and 68.5 per cent of part-time employees.

It is easy to see why many women are perhaps reluctant to put themselves forward as a Member of Parliament given the 24/7 nature of political life.

Adjusting the parliamentary schedule and trialling a system of proxy voting during parental leave are useful starts.

But the thinking needs to be more deep-rooted — such as considering the idea of shared representation.

Job sharing has worked well in many other areas of employment, so why not consider it for MPs?

The idea has already been canvassed in Britain by aspiring Greens MPs Sarah Cope and Clare Phipps, who applied to stand as joint candidates for the general election in 2015.

Neither could work full-time.

Cope was the principal carer for her two young children, one of whom had autism.

Phipps suffered from a chronic medical condition.

Their application was rejected by the court on the grounds that the relevant legislation described a situation in which parliamentary constituencies were represented by a single member only.

But the judge made a highly pertinent point: “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.”

He went on to say that Cope and Phipps had raised an issue of fundamental importance to parliamentary democracy.

This view is underscored by the 2018 findings of the UK Gender-Sensitive Parliament Audit, which identified unpredictable and long hours as one of the four main barriers to women seeking parliamentary office.

This is well-known to Australian female parliamentary members.

Tanya Plibersek opted not to run for Opposition Leader on the grounds it would be too disruptive for her young family.

Kelly O’Dwyer and Kate Ellis both resigned on the grounds they needed more time with their family, as did Perth MP Tim Hammond.

In his retirement statement, Mr Hammond said: “It just wasn’t working.”

“I just cannot reconcile the father that I want and need to be to three little kids while serving as a federal parliamentarian from Western Australia.”

By contrast to electoral legislation in Britain, the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1919, on the face of it, does not exclude the possibility a Senator or Member of the House of Representatives could be constituted by more than one person.

Section 163 of the Act simply describes the characteristics that would make a person eligible for nomination.

The idea of job sharing in Parliament is also fully supported by existing legal frameworks in Australia, including the Sex Discrimination Act and corresponding antidiscrimination legislation, the Fair Work Act, and the principles of representative government and democracy prescribed by the Constitution.

While job sharing would require practical consideration of the precise mechanisms of any arrangement, including to ensure transparency and accountability, the legislative, constitutional and policy basis for facilitating job sharing is strong.

It is well within the power of the 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 participation of women and other under-represented groups.

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.

The statistics on the present field of parliamentary candidates speak for themselves.

* Kim Rubenstein is Co-Director of the 50-50 by 2030 Foundation at the University of Canberra. She tweets at @Rubenstein_Kim1.

This article first appeared at www.broadagenda.com.au.

Start the conversation

Be among the first to get all the Public Sector and Defence news and views that matter.

Subscribe now and receive the latest news, delivered free to your inbox.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.