Australia's next national conversation offers a chance for robust but respectful debate

Facile rubbish are hardly two words in an email to inspire action. But these two words were the sole content of an email that greeted me over the Christmas break last December. It referred to an Australian article I tweeted about the inquiry into s44 of the Constitution. The article, by Rosie Lewis, included quotes from me as Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM).

It was far from the rudest or nastiest of the hundreds of messages I received in response to this tweet and a related Facebook post. Most responses consisted of the usual nasty and angry mix casting aspersions on my competence, intelligence, honesty and integrity that I receive on many issues I raise on social media. 

So what had raised such ire? My tweet said: The next great national debate has started. Without change, 50% of Aussies could be ineligible to seek election. I believe no other country should ever be able to dictate who we can elect to represent us. Let the committee know what is important to you (with a link to the committee). The article contained expanded comments from me as Chair of JSCEM.

The tweet, along with my comments, accurately reflected the overwhelming evidence provided last year to the JSCEM inquiry by the Australian Electoral Commission and constitutional experts. As Chair of this inquiry I was genuinely seeking input from those we represent because I believe there are clear implications for our democracy worthy of public debate over the course of this inquiry. After all, Australians are the only ones with the Constitutional responsibility to fix the problems we, and 20 years of reviews before us, had identified.

While I’m used to the short vitriolic messages fired at me on social media, it’s less common for people to take the time to engage with me, with the clear expectation that I might respond, which is why the Facile Rubbish stood out. That someone in the ACT had taken the time to find my email address, paste the tweet text in the subject bar and then type this brief, but clearly heartfelt, message, along with his contact details intrigued me. This man may have kept his message brief, but he was not hiding behind anonymity, so I took a punt and replied. I thanked him for the email and asked for a more detailed explanation of why he felt so aggrieved by my tweet. Wonderfully, he did reply and we had a considered exchange on the substance of the issue. While we may not have achieved agreement on this issue, the important thing is that as Chair I have a more informed understanding of his views and I hope he has a more informed understanding of mine.

This exchange led me also to re-read and further reflect on the nature of social media responses. Not exactly Christmas cheer to nourish one’s soul, but nonetheless, it was instructive. Like many of us, I often wonder why people feel free to say things anonymously on social media they never ever say to a person’s face. 

What if the hundreds of others who had responded so quickly and nastily, instead, had taken a few minutes to review the link I provided to the inquiry and considered some of the evidence we had received? Would it have tempered their response or enabled them to engage in more of a debate on the issue itself, rather than simply attacking me?

The committee has now reported and delivered a report for Australians citizens, who are the only ones with the constitutional power to fix the problems with s. 44. The Parliament has done its job. As Chair of this inquiry, I have been absolutely delighted with the range of public commentary on the report. Commentary has ranged from very supportive to the extremely critical - just as it should be on an issue as important as this.

Is this inquiry report into s44 of the Constitution facile rubbish? As an author of the report it is not for me to judge, it is one for all Australians to answer.

I have sent a copy of the report to my ACT correspondent and am awaiting his feedback. His opinion matters just as much as that of every single Australian. The big question that remains is how to engage each Australian in the debate about whether we need to address this issue or not. I think we do, but I am only a single vote amongst 16 million others who deserve to be heard.