Politics cannot be fixed by removing the politicians. Instead, Australians could ask more of the politicians they do elect and participate fully in civic life – protesting, joining political parties or community groups, running for office themselves and lobbying local members.
Tue 4 Nov 2025 22.19 AEDT
Photo: AAP Image/Mick Tsikas
In 2017, I was randomly selected for the Australian Capital Territory’s first citizens’ jury. Among the thousands approached, 50 Canberrans signed up to decide how the ACT’s compulsory motor accident injury insurance scheme should work – that is, who should receive compensation when injured in a motor vehicle accident, and how much should they receive?
I was excited to see how “ordinary citizens” like myself would approach problem solving – and, as a cyclist in car-centric Canberra, keen to speak for pedestrians and bike riders.
After three weekends of deliberation, the jury decided to add compensation for negligent drivers who injure themselves, but not increase insurance costs. Compensation for negligent drivers would have to be funded by halving compensation for victims of negligent drivers.
Citizens’ juries vest decision-making power in members of the public, chosen at random to ensure impartiality. After hearing evidence and deliberating, the jury makes a recommendation.
The theory is that innocent, pure citizens will make better decisions than politicians, who are partisan, interested in re-election, friendly with lobbyists and donors and more often white, old, wealthy and male than the Australians they represent.
But serving as a citizen juror actually made me more sympathetic to politicians.
The citizens’ jury reproduced the problems of politics, with none of the compensations of professional politicians and parliamentary democracy.
The citizens’ jury was intensely political. The Opposition accused the Government of trying to “manufacture” a preferred outcome. One juror boycotted the “corrupted and misleading” jury. Some victims of motor vehicle accidents were banned from participating, prompting a human rights complaint. Stakeholders organised a parallel jury of those affected by motor vehicle accidents that made different findings.
After the jury’s legitimacy was questioned in full-page ads from the legal industry, jurors closed ranks against the lawyers. Jurors were reluctant to interrupt the facilitators’ agenda lest their dissent be exploited by critics to undermine the legitimacy of the jury.
The jury was given little time. It’s true politicians sometimes ram legislation through Parliament in a matter of hours, but at other times they spend months on policy development and legislative scrutiny. My citizens’ jury only met for six days. It never heard from carers for those disabled in car accidents and saw no modelling on how cyclists and pedestrians would be affected by changes.
Australian politics has become more presidential, focused on the executive government rather than the elected Parliament. But Parliament remains freer of executive influence than my citizens’ jury was. ACT Chief Minister Andrew Barr called the citizens’ jury and it was limited by his terms of reference. The actuaries started their modelling before the citizens’ jury first met. The jury’s decision was presented to Parliament as a fait accompli, but our choices were limited to those acceptable to the executive.
Politicians are vulnerable to the threats and promises of industry lobbyists. But politicians at least have advisers who can investigate lobbyists’ claims, and access to parliamentary libraries for more detailed research. And if vested interests want to give evidence to Parliament, they must do so on the record. Citizens’ jurors are exposed to the charm offensive behind closed doors, without resources to independently verify lobbyist claims.
If citizens’ juries are going to stand in for parliaments, they should be resourced like parliamentarians – with their own staff, access to the Parliamentary Library, witnesses who face legal consequences if they lie, and deliberations recorded in Hansard.
50 ingenues like myself were pitted against hardened lobbyists and political operators. No wonder the insurance industry and Office of the Chief Minister got what they wanted. Politicians have a bit of mongrel in them, but that is what you need to take on power: someone who knows every trick in the book.
The insurance industry found the ACT citizens’ jury so favourable that one big insurer paid to replicate the process in Queensland, and hired the same firm to run it.
I should say that I was in the small minority of jurors who disagreed with the jury’s decision. Perhaps that contributes to my scepticism. I hope not. Other citizens’ juries have made decisions I like without alleviating my concerns. One in Ireland helped to break the deadlock over abortion.
Citizens’ juries may be able to cut the Gordian knot on a matter that has become intractable for party politicians. But, overall, their ability to solve wicked problems has been exaggerated. If elected parliamentarians cannot resolve an issue, my experience suggests weekend warriors are unlikely to do any better.
