Three candidates walk into a bar…

It could be the beginning of a silly joke. But, while it was a lot of fun, it was not just serious but genuinely moving, with one of the candidates weeping tears of joy at being welcomed into a respectful conversation.

(And, to be honest, it was a community centre, not a bar.)

Last week in Murwillumbah, in the marginal Labor / Greens / Nationals electorate of Richmond on the NSW far north coast, the Green Institute co-hosted Candidates Meet the Community, an experiment in deliberative democracy as part of an adversarial election campaign.

Some 60 members of the local community took part in the 3 hour event, which was designed to promote community collaboration and better democracy by flipping the script of the traditional “Meet the Candidates” forum. It was a grand success, helping community members feel empowered, engaged and heard during an election campaign, showing candidates what effective democratic conversation can be like, and coming up with a range of sensible (and quite radical) proposals to make life better for us all.

What do I mean by “flipping the script”?

Well, instead of candidates sitting on a stage, literally talking down to their prospective constituents, fighting amongst themselves as they grandstand and compete in a winner-takes-all fight, at our event the candidates were invited to join their fellow community members in a deliberative democratic process, working together towards outcomes that benefit everyone. Sitting with community members at tables, they discussed what the region has going for it, where the big gaps are, what the community can do for each other to help plug those gaps, and what their MP can champion and support them to do.

This allowed the candidates to hear directly from voters and work with them towards consensus, finding common ground across difference, and showing a better way of doing democracy than what we see in our parliaments and in our political media.

It was excellent to have the active participation not just of Greens candidate, Mandy Nolan, but of two right-wing candidates: Phillip Peterkin of Trumpet of Patriots, and independent James McKenzie. The One Nation candidate had also intended to come, but sent apologies on the day. Disappointingly, Labor’s sitting member, Justine Elliot, despite having been invited months earlier, deliberately organised an event with an anti-LGBTQI+ church group for the same night – an event which Nationals candidate Kimberley Hone and another independent also attended (along with only half as many community members…).

The candidates were welcomed at the beginning, but asked to find a seat at a table, not address the crowd. Their opportunity would come at the end, where they would have the chance to reflect on what they heard and offer commitments about both the outcomes and the process.

Working through a carefully-designed program, the conversation flowed effectively all evening. Each table worked through ideas from brainstorm through to consensus, bring forward the following proposals they could agree on ahead of the federal election:

• Tax Reform: Implement strong taxation of the fossil fuel industry, billionaires, and big business
• First Nations Justice: Pursue truth telling as a path to justice and treaty
• Housing Solutions: Implement a Place Based Project to address the local housing crisis through a comprehensive housing audit, utilising existing stock, and investing in public and intergenerational housing. 
• Climate Action: Combat the climate crisis through energy autonomy and immediate renewable transition
• Environmental Protection: Take real action including ending native forest logging and addressing plastic dependency
• Public Transport: Improve accessibility and infrastructure for sustainable transportation

It is particularly noteworthy that, through effective table facilitation, the table with right-wing independent, James McKenzie, was able to reach consensus on a proposal for a Truth Telling Commission as a path towards First Nations Justice. And the table with Phillip Peterkin from the Trumpet of Patriots reached consensus not only on a range of strong policies on housing justice but also on taxing wealth. It was Peterkin who at one point was in tears, recognising for the first time the potential of real, deep democratic discussion.

For me, this really proved again that, if you take the time and treat each other with respect, even if you come into a room thinking you are on opposite sides, even in the middle of quite a viciously adversarial election campaign, there are a lot of things we can agree on. And it comes down to listening to and caring for each other rather than shouting from our corners.

This is why it is so disappointing that Justine Elliot and Kimberly Hone chose to prioritise a divisive event instead of attending a constructive, creative conversation with members of their community.

As my excellent co-facilitator, Chels Hood Withey from 350, said “Community members are clearly crying out for better ways of doing democratic decision making. In a world of manufactured political division, we are learning that the vast majority of us are willing to work together towards outcomes that put people and the planet above profit and privilege.”