Search Results

< Back CENTRE MEETS CENTRE: MARGEM AT UFMG In this seminar, Ricardo Mendonça along with other MARGEM members will present the current research of the research group MARGEM. About this event In this seminar, Ricardo Mendonça along with other MARGEM members will present the current research of the research group MARGEM. The Research Group on Democracy and Justice (MARGEM) carries out interdisciplinary investigations aimed at deepening democracy and at comprehending the social struggles that are intrinsic to it. The group is based at UFMG, Brazil, and works with topics at the intersection of democratic theories, political communication, contentious politics and theories of justice. MARGEM is strongly influenced by critical theory informed by pragmatism, employing relational perspectives to make sense of political phenomena. Current projects developed within the group address a wide range of topics including algorithms, social media, disinformation, uberization, protests, populism, visual narratives, gender, race and democratic innovations. Seminar series convenors Hans Asenbaum and Sahana Sehgal . Please register via Eventbrite . Previous Next

PhD Completions Andrea Felicetti Former PhD Student View Profile Penelope Marshall Former PhD student View Profile Kei Nishiyama Former PhD student View Profile Alex Lo Former PhD Student View Profile Pierrick Chalaye Former PhD student View Profile Katherine Curchin Former PhD student View Profile Michael Rollens Former PhD student View Profile Louise Clery Former PhD student View Profile Jonathan Kuyper Former PhD student View Profile Nardine Alnemr Former PhD student View Profile Melissa Lovell Former PhD student View Profile John Boswell Former PhD student View Profile 1 2 1 ... 1 2 ... 2

< Back The Politics of the Anthropocene John S. Dryzek, Jonathan Pickering 2019 , Oxford University Press Winner of the 2019 Clay Morgan Award Committee for Best Book in Environmental Political Theory Summary The Politics of the Anthropocene is a sophisticated yet accessible treatment of how human institutions, practices, and principles need to be re-thought in response to the challenges of the Anthropocene, the emerging epoch of human-induced instability in the Earth system and its life-support capacities. However, the world remains stuck with practices and modes of thinking that were developed in the Holocene – the epoch of around 12,000 years of unusual stability in the Earth system, toward the end of which modern institutions such as states and capitalist markets arose. These institutions persist despite their potentially catastrophic failure to respond to the challenges of the Anthropocene, foremost among them a rapidly changing climate and accelerating biodiversity loss. Read more Previous Next

< Back Deliberations with American Indian and Alaska native communities about genomics Erika Blacksher, University of Washington / Justin Reedy, University of Oklahoma Tue 4 August 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel. Abstract With the rapid growth of genetic and genomic research and medical testing in recent years, more attention is being paid to their ethical and societal implications, including citizens’ concerns about potential risks and benefits of these technologies. Indigenous peoples represent a particularly important group where such advances are concerned, due to a long history of exploitation and marginalization by the U.S. federal government and the marked disparities they experience in health services and health outcomes relative to other populations. A consortium of researchers and practitioners in the US, in close partnership with indigenous community partners, has begun to study the concerns and views of American Indian and Alaska Native peoples on genomics through a series of deliberations in three communities in Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Alaska. This presentation will describe the design and implementation of these deliberative forums, as well as the results of the deliberations from a process perspective. In addition, it discusses some of the implications of this work for scholarship and practice in deliberation, both for efforts involving indigenous peoples and for forums focused on genetics and ethical, legal, and societal implications (ELSI). About the speaker Erika Blacksher is an associate professor and director of undergraduates studies in the Department of Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Washington in Seattle. Dr. Blacksher studies the ethical and policy implications of the social determinants of health with focus on ethical questions raised by health inequalities, debates over health responsibility, and the role of participatory and deliberative forms of engagement in advancing health equity. She often works in collaborative community-academic partnerships to design and conduct deliberations that convene minority and marginalized groups to identify their health priorities and policy preferences. Justin Reedy is an associate professor in the Department of Communication and research associate in the Center for Risk & Crisis Management at the University of Oklahoma. He studies political communication and deliberation, group and organizational communication, and the perception of risk. In particular, his research focuses on how groups of people make political and civic decisions in face-to-face and online settings, as well as how people and policy makers can come together to deliberate and make better decisions on public policy issues that involve significant societal and personal risk. Previous Next

< Back Situation normal: Populism from antiquity to the age of trump Paul Kenny, Australian National University Tue 12 February 2019 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Although populism has become a subject of intense interest since Donald Trump’s election victory in late 2016, populism itself – the charismatic mobilization of the masses in pursuit of power – is nothing new. Contrary to the oft-stated view that populism is a novel perversion of democracy, this project shows that it has in fact been democracy’s constant shadow. The liberal democratic era of the latter twentieth century – to which contemporary populism is typically compared – was the historical exception. Populists thrive both where modern bureaucratic parties have yet to exist and where they have begun to decay. Populism has been historically most successful in competitive patrimonial political systems, the kinds that prevailed in most democratic experiences outside of the twentieth century West, from Ancient Greece and Rome to the “third wave” democracies of Latin America, Asia, and Africa. Only where patrimonialism is combined with authoritarian centralism has it proven relatively stable. In the West, in contrast, populism has only resurfaced as the modern bureaucratic political party has gone into decline. As organizations with deep roots in communities, unions, and churches, bureaucratic parties provided a stable link between people and the government. Populists in the West are thriving today because the exceptional socioeconomic foundations on which those parties were built have decomposed. Trump’s election signals a return to normal; a normal of weak, personalistic parties; a normal ruled by democratic volatility. About the speaker Paul Kenny is a Fellow and Head of the Department of Political and Social Change at the Australian National University. He joined the ANU in 2013, having completed his PhD in political science at Yale University. His research focuses on some of the major challenges to contemporary democracy, including populism, identity politics, and corruption. His first book, Populism and Patronage: Why Populists Win Elections in India, Asia, and Beyond (Oxford University Press, 2017) demonstrates a causal link between the disruption of political patronage networks and the electoral success of populist candidates. The book received the American Political Science Association's 2018 Robert A. Dahl Award for research of the highest quality on the subject of democracy. His second book, Populism in Southeast Asia (Cambridge University Press, 2019), examines the political economy of populism in the region. His research on populism, ethnic politics, and corruption has been published in The Journal of Politics, the British Journal of Political Science, and Political Research Quarterly among other outlets. He is currently working on a new book on populism across democratic history. Previous Next

Selen A. Ercan, Jensen Sass, John Dryzek and Peter Balint < Back Democratic Resilience: The Public Sphere and Extremist Attacks Investigator(s): Selen A. Ercan, Jensen Sass, John Dryzek and Peter Balint Funded through a Discovery Project ( DP210102436 ) (AU$511,000), the Project Team includes: Selen A. Ercan Jordan McSwiney Peter Balint John S. Dryzek Partner Investigators: Jensen Sass Andrea Felicetti Emily Beausoleil Ian O’Flynn Project Description The project aims to explain responses to extremist attacks intended to sow division, and why some democracies prove fragile, succumbing to polarisation or exclusion of key groups, while others prove resilient by sustaining integrative, tolerant discourse. The project develops new knowledge through an innovative synthesis of cultural sociology and deliberative democracy to analyse nine cases of responses in the public realm to attacks. Expected outcomes include a new account of the democratic public sphere, and identification of how meaningful, civil communication whose health is vital to democracy, especially in a multicultural society, can be maintained. Benefits include identification of measures to counter extremist political disruption.

Latest News - Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance < Back Building Democratic Resilience - Report Launch 13 Oct 2022 On 13 October, we launched the report Building Democratic Resilience - Public Sphere Responses to Violent Extremism, commissioned by the NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet. The launch took place at the ANU, hosted by the F reilich Project for the Study of Bigotry . Panelists included Dr Jordan McSwiney, Postdoctoral Fellow at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance (CDDGG) at the University of Canberra, Dr Emily Corner, Senior Lecturer of Criminology at the Centre for Social Research and Methods at the Australian National University, and Pia van de Zandt, Director of the Connected Communities team in Department of Premier and Cabinet, NSW. Pictured: Selen A. Ercan (CDDGG), Peter Balint (UNSW), Pia van de Zandt (NSW Government) and Jordan McSwiney (CDDGG)

Past Seminars The Centre holds weekly seminars on important topics in deliberative democracy with leading scholars from Australia and around the world. Tue 7 June 2022 DECOLONIZING DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY Ricardo Mendonca and Hans Asenbaum / 9.00am-10.00am Zoom (please request link from the seminar convenors) Read More Tue 31 May 2022 DECOLONIZING DELIBERATIVE MINI-PUBLICS Azucena Mora and Nicole Curato / 6.00pm - 7.00pm Zoom (please request link from the seminar convenors) Read More Tue 24 May 2022 CENTRE MEETS CENTRE: PARTICIPEDIA AND CDDGG WITH BONNY IBHAWOH Bonny Ibhawoh / 11.00am-12.00pm Zoom (please request link from the seminar convenors) Read More Tue 17 May 2022 WAIT, WHAT? DECOLONIZING DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY? Genevieve Fuji Johnson / 11.00am-12.00pm Zoom (please request link from the seminar convenors) Read More Tue 10 May 2022 NATIVE TITLE AS A DELIBERATIVE SPACE FOR INDIGENOUS SELF-DETERMINATION Justin McCaul / 11.00am-12.00pm Zoom (please request link from the seminar convenors) Read More Tue 3 May 2022 HOW DO SETTLER-COLONIAL INEQUALITIES SHAPE POLITICAL BEHAVIOUR AND COMMUNICATION IN ANGLO-DEMOCRACIES? Edana Beauvais / 9.00am-10.00am Zoom (please request link from the seminar convenors) Read More Tue 26 April 2022 DECOLONIZING DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY AND POLITICAL CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY Professor Bobby Banerjee / 8.00pm-11.00pm Zoom (please request link from the seminar convenors) Read More Tue 22 March 2022 DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY AND DIGITAL PLATFORMS:JOHN GASTIL IN CONVERSATION WITH NARDINE ALNEMR John Gastil and Nardine Alnemr / 11.00am-12.00pm Zoom (please request link from the seminar convenors) Read More Tue 15 March 2022 CENTRE MEETS CENTRE: MARGEM AT UFMG Ricardo Mendonca and team / 11.00am-12.00pm Zoom (please request link from the seminar convenors) Read More Tue 1 March 2022 DIGITAL PLATFORMS AND ISSUE POLARISATION: CITIZENS' DEBATES ON ABORTION, RACIAL QUOTAS AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN BRAZIL FROM 2021-2019 Tariq Choucair / 11.00am-12.00pm Zoom (please request link from the seminar convenors) Read More 1 2 3 ... 16 1 ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... 16

< Back Democracy inside: Participatory innovation in unlikely places Albert W. Dzur, Bowling Green State University Tue 1 July 2014 11:00am – 12:00pm Fishbowl, Building 24, University of Canberra Abstract This talk will present a brief overview of research on democratic professionals across the United States who have created power-sharing arrangements in organizations, institutions, and workplaces that are typically hierarchical and non-participatory. Democratic professionals emphasize talk and deliberation but, crucially, they also foster physical proximity between formerly separated individuals, encourage co-ownership of problems previously seen as beyond lay people’s ability or realm of responsibility, and seek out opportunities for collaborative work. Unconventional activists, they are not promoting change via formal political institutions; instead, they are renovating and reconstructing their domains practice-by-practice and are making new kinds of education, justice, and government as a result. Drawing on a friendly critique of major trends in contemporary democratic theory, this talk will focus on the implications of this research for thinking about democratic change, citizen agency, and institutions as fields of action. About the Speaker Albert W. Dzur is Professor of Political Science and Philosophy at Bowling Green State University. He is the author of Punishment, Participatory Democracy, and the Jury (Oxford, 2012), Democratic Professionalism: Citizen Participation and the Reconstruction of Professional Ethics, Identity, and Practice (Penn State, 2008), and articles on democratic theory and citizen participation in journals such as Constellations, Criminal Law and Philosophy, Law and Society Review, Political Theory, and Punishment and Society. Working with the Kettering Foundation on his current book project, Democracy Inside: Participatory Innovation in Unlikely Places, he has interviewed democratic innovators in education, criminal justice, and city government about how they open their institutions to deliberation and participation and sustain such norms and practices amid counter-democratic pressures. Project interviews regularly appear in his “Trench Democracy” series for the Boston Review and “Conversations on Participatory Democracy” for the Good Society journal. Previous Next

< Back Fast track or wrong track: Heuristics in deliberative systems Andreas Schäfer, Humboldt University Tue 26 February 2019 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract This presentation focuses on the role heuristics can and should play within a deliberative system. Heuristics are routinely cast in opposition to deliberative practices. Whereas deliberation aims at the systematic and comprehensive exchange of information and arguments related to a specific, often complex problem, heuristics ignore (parts of) information in order to facilitate fast and frugal decision making. However, scholars have pointed to the advantages of heuristics for citizens and elites alike in making assessments and taking positions within an increasingly complex social environment. Some scholars even argue that heuristics can lead to better results than more complex procedures of decision-making, especially when complete information regarding the problem under consideration is unavailable, too costly, or contested. The question arises, then, of how the potential positive and negative effects of heuristics can be combined with deliberative approaches to political decision making. To empirically illustrate this dilemma, I draw on a research project that investigates communication strategies of political parties in an increasingly dynamic, complex and insecure media environment – one characterized by a plurality of communication platforms as well as a by a new hybridity of old and new media logics. About the speaker Dr. Andreas Schäfer is currently a visiting Professor for Political Sociology and Social Policy at the Department of Social Sciences at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, where he also received his PhD in 2015. His research interests rest at the intersection between political communication and decision-making. He has investigated the role of deliberation in parliamentary decision-making and is now focusing on strategies political parties use for communication in an age of increasing communicative abundance. Related publications include “Deliberation in representative institutions: an analytical framework for a systemic approach” (Australian Journal of Political Science, 2017) and “Zwischen Repräsentation und Diskurs: Zur Rolle von Deliberation im parlamentarischen Entscheidungsprozess” (Springer VS, 2017). Previous Next

< Back Multilingual parties and the ethics of partisanship Matteo Bonotti, Monash University Tue 20 November 2018 The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract This paper argues that multilingual political parties, i.e. parties that exist and operate across linguistic boundaries by using different languages, are normatively superior to those that use a lingua franca at realizing some of the key goals of partisanship. These involve promoting the common good; educating party members and citizens in general; fostering an attitude to toleration and compromise; and offering a linkage between citizens and government. The paper has important implications for debates on the role of linguistic diversity in democratic theory and practice, and on the challenges of multilingualism in polities such as the European Union. About the speaker Matteo Bonotti is a Lecturer in the Department of Politics and International Relations at Monash University, having previous taught at Cardiff University, Queen’s University Belfast, and the University of Edinburgh. His work has appeared or is forthcoming in such journals as the American Political Science Review, The Journal of Politics, the Journal of Applied Philosophy, the European Journal of Political Theory, Philosophy & Social Criticism, the Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, the Journal of Social Philosophy, the Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, and Res Publica. His monograph Partisanship and Political Liberalism in Diverse Societies was published by Oxford University Press in 2017. Matteo's research interests are diverse but unified by a common underlying theme: ethical pluralism and cultural diversity in contemporary societies, and the question of how the state should respond to them. Matteo is currently writing a monograph (with Anne Barnhill, Johns Hopkins University) on healthy eating policy and liberal political philosophy, which is under contract with Oxford University Press. His general research interests also include linguistic justice, free speech, religion and political theory, and the normative dimensions of partisanship. Previous Next

< Back Andreas Schaeffer Associate About Andreas Schaeffer's research interests rest at the intersection between political communication and decision-making. He has investigated the role of deliberation in parliamentary decision-making and is now focusing on strategies political parties use for communication in an age of increasing communicative abundance.

< Back Friedel Marquardt Research Assistant About Friedel is a Research Assistant in the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance for the global research project Participedia’s Participatory Governance Cluster. She is also a PhD student at the University of Canberra, in the School of Politics, Economics and Society in the Business, Government and Law faculty.  Dissertation Friedel’s PhD thesis considers whether social media is a viable platform for marginalised groups to engage with dominant narratives. She is specifically looking into the Black Lives Matter movement in Australia, which had a strong focus on First Nations deaths in custody, to try to understand if and to what extent this takes place. PhD Supervisors Mary Walsh (primary supervisor)  Selen Ercan (secondary supervisor)  Hans Asenbaum (secondary supervisor)  Administration Cluster Coordinator, Participedia, 2021-present Scholarships and Prizes Research Training Program Stipend Scholarship (2021-2023), University of Canberra University Medal (2019), University of Canberra Key Publications Gagnon, J.P., Asenbaum, H., Fleuβ, D., Bassu, S., Guasti, P., Dean, R., Chalaye, P., Alnemr, N., Marquardt, F. & Weiss, A. (2021) The Marginalized Democracies of the World. Democratic Theory, 8(2), 1-18.  https://doi.org/10.3167/dt.2021.080201   Conference Presentations The Politics of Narrative in Media, Political Organisation and Participation (POP) APSA Standing Group Annual Workshop, 6-7 December 2022, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA.  Australian Political Studies Association Annual Conference, 26-28 September 2022, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT. The Politics of Narrative in Media, Political Organisation and Participation (POP) APSA Standing Group Annual Workshop, 16-17 February 2022, Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD.  “First Nations in Contemporary Australia: Present, but Heard?”, Australian Political Studies Association Annual Conference, 20-22 September 2021, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, (online due to COVID restrictions). Teaching Tutor, Introduction to Politics and Government, 2022 – present Tutor and guest lecturer, Introduction to Public Policy, 2021 - present  Public Engagement Levin, M., Parry, L., & Marquardt, F. (2022) ‘Best-Interests Decision Making,’ Just Participation Participedia Podcast, 16 August. Marquardt, F. (2022) ‘People’s participation in process design,’ in Risks and lessons from the deliberative wave. Edited by N. Curato. Deliberative Democracy Digest. 2 May.  Marquardt, F. (2022) Who determines the practical meanings of democracy?. ECPR The Loop. 7 April.  Marquardt, F. (2022) Who Controls the Narrative? The Power of Social Media, Murra Magazine. February. Marquardt, F. and Ercan, S.A. (2022) Deliberative Integrity Indicators: Some Insights from Participedia. Research Note #3 , Deliberative Integrity Project. January. 

< Back EXPLORING THE BARRIERS AND ENABLERS OF INTERCULTURAL ENGAGEMENT IN AUSTRALIA: THE CASE OF INDIAN DIASPORA IN CANBERRA Australian multiculturalism, while a successful project and policy framework since the 1970s, does not emphasise intercultural engagement in its practice and thus fails to promote interaction at a micro, community level. Advancing intercultural engagement is a key for the future of multiculturalism in Australia. Only by making multiculturalism more interactive, Australia can respond to the emerging ‘super-diversity’ in this country. This research will seek to understand the enablers and barriers of intercultural engagement through an in-depth study of the Indian diaspora in Canberra as a case study. While Indian diaspora is only one ethnic community among many others, it is a suitable case for exploring the questions this research seeks to respond to. The project will offer new insights on how different actors perceive and practice intercultural engagement focusing on three different yet interconnected levels of analysis within the public domain- the public, civic actors, and government agencies. It will involve interviews with key actors, focus groups with the members of Indian diaspora and document analysis of policy documents with respect to multiculturalism and intercultural engagement. The project is funded by the industry partnership between University of Canberra/Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance and Canberra Multicultural Services (CMS). Seminar series convenors Hans Asenbaum and Sahana Sehgal . Previous Next

< Back The migrant voice in public policy deliberations: The health story in Australia and Canada Catherine Clutton, Australian National University Tue 7 April 2015 11:00am - 12:00pm Fishbowl, Building 24, University of Canberra Abstract If there is a criticism of deliberative democracy it is that those who are included in deliberations frequently represent the well-educated, articulate, generally male, dominant majority who can engage in rational debate. This effectively excludes citizens who are less articulate, who may prefer different styles of interaction, or who are otherwise subject to discrimination such as women and visible minorities. Many immigrants fit the profile of those who are generally excluded. My research project takes the policy maker’s perspective and focuses on the engagement of immigrants in the development of health-related public policy, comparing Australia and Canada at both the national and State/Territory/Provincial levels. Noting that both Australia and Canada have explicit national policies in favour of multiculturalism and citizen engagement, it is pertinent to review how public officials engage with citizens from increasingly culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. In this context critical multiculturalism provides an opportunity to examine the institutional structures in place that may exclude immigrants from participating in government deliberations. Equally, the norms of deliberative democracy provide a framework to enable the inclusion of immigrant voices. Together, the facilitating features of these frameworks should enable the inclusion of immigrant voices. Within these frameworks I ask whether and how paying greater attention to cultural competence can enhance public policy deliberations and thus policy outcomes. Today’s presentation will be illustrated with findings from my fieldwork to show how governments are addressing the objective of inclusion expressed in these frameworks. About the speaker Cathy Clutton is a PhD Candidate at the ANU Medical School, College of Medicine, Biology and Environment. Cathy has over thirty years’ experience of public administration with the Australian Government (1978-2012), almost all of which was in the federal health portfolio. The majority of this time was spent with the National Health and Medical Research Council. Her responsibilities have included developing and managing programs that provided support for community organisations, developing evidence-based clinical practice and public health guidelines and policy, and providing support for health and medical research in Australia, including the ethical conduct of research. A recurring theme in her work has been citizen engagement. Previous Next

Adele Webb, Nardine Alnemr, Selen Ercan, John Dryzek, Michael Neblo, Hans Asenbaum < Back Connecting to Parliament: Creating authentic engagement between citizens and their elected representatives Investigator(s): Adele Webb, Nardine Alnemr, Selen Ercan, John Dryzek, Michael Neblo, Hans Asenbaum The world is rapidly changing. Parliaments have a vital role to play in not only recognising new challenges but enabling citizens to connect with and participate in policy-making processes that will impact their lives now and into the future. In amongst the gloomy picture for democracy worldwide, where citizen disengagement is pervasive and palpable, there are glimmers of hope. Instances of parliaments and legislatures finding new ways to augment traditional institutions of representation – exploring innovations in democracy to meaningfully engage with citizens between elections. Project Description Connecting to Parliament (C2P) is one of the CDDGG’s flagship initiatives, which aims to involve more Australians in the processes of parliament, by making democracy more deliberative. The project involves a series of deliberative engagements, including online deliberative town halls, which link a representative sample of constituents with their elected official in productive town hall conversations about the issues that are subject to parliamentary debate in Australia. Through these deliberative processes, parliamentarians gain the opportunity to deepen their understanding of their constituency’s diverse voices, considerations and concerns. Participants make connections with formal decision-makers and have the opportunity for their voice to be heard outside of elections. At the same time, the project provides the opportunity to expand our knowledge about the potential benefits and uses of deliberative democracy. The project builds on the insights gained from the successful Connecting to Congress project led by Professor Michael Neblo and his team at the Institute for Democratic Engagement and Accountability, Ohio State University. Connecting to Parliament replicates this work by designing and analyzing a series of deliberative forums with citizens and elected representatives. Through administering a range of Deliberative Town Halls (in-person, hybrid, and online) C2C aims to identify the modes of deliberative engagement that produce the greatest gains in engagement and increase positive aspects of civic behavior among diverse populations of citizens. Town Hall on Mitochondrial Donation In September 2020, Connecting to Parliament held two Deliberative Town Halls with Member of Parliament Andrew Leigh. These events focused on Mitochondrial Donation, a medical procedure – illegal at the time – that was set to undergo a conscience vote in Parliament. As a “conscience vote,” a relatively rare (occurring roughly once per term) type of vote where MP’s do not have to vote along party lines, Leigh MP was free to vote entirely at his discretion. Greeted with this unique opportunity, Andrew Leigh MP partnered with the Connecting to Parliament project to engage in a deliberative democracy exercise with his electorate. In two town hall meetings, one online and one face-to-face, a series of constituents from Leigh’s electorate of Fenner were randomly selected to weigh the issues surrounding mitochondrial donation. Prior to these events, Member of Parliament Leigh agreed that his vote would be guided by the conclusions of these Deliberative Town Halls. Overwhelmingly, participants in both town halls believed that Mitochondrial Donation should be made legal in Australia. In a statement on the Mitochondrial Donation Law Reform Bill in late 2021, Leigh MP said that: “the overwhelming sentiment among those who attended the forum was to support mitochondrial donation, and I will be voting in favour of this bill.” The majority of the House of Representatives, including Leigh MP, voted in favor of the Bill on December 1, 2021. The Bill passed in the Senate on March 30, 2022; mitochondrial donation became legal in Australia starting October 2, 2022. More information on the Bill may be found here at the Parliament of Australia website . Town Hall on Young People and Australian Politics In August 2021, Connecting to Parliament held a Deliberative Town Hall with Member of Parliament Alicia Payne on the issue of increasing youth participation in politics. The focus of young people was chosen as there is an increasing generational gap between those in power and the nation’s youth; today, the average age of an Australian MP is 52. As the decisions these lawmakers make will have lasting effects for decades, including young people more in the political process will give them greater agency over those who make the decisions that will affect their futures. Partner With Us Connecting to Parliament is a collaborative process that seeks to establish innovative and substantive conversations between constituents and public officials on important policy issues. By working with our team, elected officials will: Co-design the goals for deliberative town halls Participate in 60–90-minute non-partisan, unscripted, third-party facilitated conversations with constituents Learn about informed public interests while opening new channels of communication to a broadly representative sample of the local population Work with academic institutions focused on the public good, which means that our processes are designed to be cost-effective Garner qualitative and quantitative information from participants on their experiences attending townhalls as well as their opinions about specific policy issues. For more information, contact Adele Webb at connecting2parliament@canberra.edu.au

< Back Indigenous grassroots participation and the coevolution of deliberative systems Mei-Fang Fan, National Yang-Ming University Tue 2 October 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Research on deliberative systems with detailed discussions on indigenous democracy and the deliberative features of indigenous activism is limited. The heterogeneous and ambivalent complexity of colonial history and geographical contexts has had a considerable effect on indigenous representatives and indigenous forms of deliberation. Indigenous movement and environmental protests against the dominance of the state are traditionally regarded as nondeliberative. The systemic approach of deliberative democracy argues that activism constitute an integral part of public deliberation, which recognises the contribution of indigenous knowledge and democratic practices to policy-making and wider deliberative systems. This article considers indigenous activism and political communication as a part of the macro-deliberative system as well as a micro deliberative system in itself. Drawing on the controversy on flooding and wild creek remediation projects on Orchid Island, Taiwan, this study explored how indigenous activism facilitate space for deliberation and improve the democratising quality of deliberative systems. Tao tribesmen transcended their original boundaries to engage in communication and activate plural deliberative spaces when facing conflicting new challenges and the government’s dominant policy positions with limited discursive space. Tao activists used the virtual community as both an internal and external communication platform and engaged in transmission and visualisation of traditional knowledge system and practices. Indigenous grassroots participation facilitates knowledge coproduction and social learning and reshapes tribal political subjectivities, which reveals the coevolution of tribal deliberative systems and their interaction with the State, intertwined with deliberative systems. About the speaker Mei-Fang Fan is Professor at the Institute of Science, Technology and Society, National Yang-Ming University and research fellow at the Risk Society and Policy Research Centre, National Taiwan University. She holds a Doctoral degree in Environment and Society from Lancaster University, UK. Research interests include environmental justice and governance; deliberative democracy and public participation in decision-making on risk; participatory budgeting; local knowledge and citizen science. Her recent work on environmental justice, public deliberations on GM foods in Taiwan and nuclear waste facility siting controversy has appeared in the journals Human Ecology, Public Understanding of Science and Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. Mei-Fang sits on the editorial board of Taiwanese journal of public administration and is a member of the Taipei City participatory budgeting government-academia alliance. Previous Next

Postdoctoral Research Fellow < Back Ana Tanasoca Postdoctoral Research Fellow About Ana Tanasoca's interests include global (economic) justice, epistemic democracy, immigration ethics and citizenship, and deliberative democracy and broadly in applied ethics and democratic theory.

< Back Mediating the national conversation: Journalism and the Child Abuse Royal Commission 2013-17 Tue 12 May 2020 Kerry McCallum, University of Canberra 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel. Abstract Royal Commissions represent an opportunity for national-level reflection, truth-seeking and public discussion. While at times politically motivated, they often become a touchstone of national debate, a mediated ‘critical conversation’. Media and journalism play a central role in this process, but to date there has been little academic research on the role of media in commissions of inquiry. This presentation introduces the Breaking Silences project that is investigating the role of media, journalism and social media activism in the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (2013-17). I will explore the interplay between the Child Abuse Royal Commission’s media-related practices, news media reporting, and survivor groups digital media use in pursuing justice and redress for the victims of child sexual abuse through the inquiry process. Drawing on a critical listening framework I ask: whose voices were heard in the Royal Commission process, which institutions got the most attention, and whose voices were overshadowed in the mediation of the inquiry? About the speaker Kerry McCallum is Professor of Communication and Media Studies, and Director of the News & Media Research Centre at the University of Canberra. Her research in Political Communication focuses on the relationships between a changing media and Australian social policy. Kerry has been the recipient of four Australian Research Council grants and is currently lead CI on the Breaking Silences: Media and the Child Abuse Royal Commission (DP190101282) project. She is author (with L. Waller) of The Dynamics of News and Indigenous Policy in Australia, Intellect, 2017). Previous Next

Postdoctoral Research Fellow < Back Hayley Stevenson Postdoctoral Research Fellow About Hayley Stevenson's principal research interests include: global environmental politics and climate change, global civil society, legitimacy in international relations, and deliberative global governance. She is a Reader in Politics and International Relations at the University of Sheffield.