Voices of Bean is a community group that has been actively listening to the people of Bean throughout 2024 and at every opportunity has asked what qualities people want to see in an independent candidate. Conversations with over 800 people formed the basis for the selection criteria.
Expressions of interest were opened in May and closed on 22 October 2024. The EOI form was advertised on the Voices of Bean website and social media, a card delivered to a large number of letterboxes in Bean, as well as in a full-page advertisement in the Canberra Times. Voices of Bean also met with people with standing in the community who were suggested to us, to explore whether these people would apply or could suggest others who might make a good candidate.
Thirteen applications were received from people across the electorate and with an even spread of genders. The Voices of Bean core group formed a sub-committee which appointed a selection panel from among its members and the broader Voices of Bean community, to assess the applications. Six applicants were interviewed, of whom three were shortlisted.
The three shortlisted applicants presented at an online candidate forum on 28 October, which was held on an in-camera basis. The forum was attended by people from the Voices of Bean mailing list, and those not able to attend had a brief opportunity to view the recording. Those who attended or watched then submitted a feedback survey, rating their most preferred candidate against a number of criteria, as well as their views of the strengths and weaknesses of the prospective candidates. The survey was anonymous but separated responses based on whether the respondent lives in Bean, so that the panel could weight them differently. The responses were used by the selection panel in making their final recommendation, which was then ratified by the Voices of Bean sub-committee.

Voices of Bean’s candidate selection process presents a mix of commendable efforts and areas that warrant further scrutiny. The group’s emphasis on listening to over 800 individuals to shape their selection criteria is a strong feature, demonstrating a commitment to community-driven values. Their listening report, which outlines the top 10 qualities sought in a candidate, provides transparency and alignment with community expectations. Additionally, the group’s outreach to advertise the Expression of Interest (EOI) process—via letterboxing, online platforms, and a full-page advertisement in the Canberra Times—reflects an effort to engage beyond digital-first or elite-only methods. However, the use of additional strategies, such as direct engagement with harder-to-reach populations, might have further strengthened this inclusivity.
While 13 applications were received, it is unclear how diverse the applicant pool was beyond an “even spread of genders,” which is mathematically questionable with an odd number. There is also no information about other diversity metrics, such as cultural, professional, or socioeconomic backgrounds, nor an understanding of barriers that may have deterred other potential applicants. The decision to meet with suggested individuals to encourage applications adds another layer of ambiguity, potentially introducing bias and reducing transparency in what should ideally be a fully open process.
The structure of the selection process also raises questions. The Voices of Bean core group formed a sub-committee to appoint a selection panel, but there is no clarity on who was part of the core group, how selection panel members were chosen, or what criteria were applied in their selection. This lack of transparency risks perceptions of elitism or backroom decision-making. Further, the process for narrowing the field from 13 applicants to six interviewees, and eventually three shortlisted candidates, remains opaque. What criteria were applied? What differentiated those chosen from others?
The online candidate forum held for shortlisted applicants is another mixed point. While providing an opportunity for members to engage, it is unclear how many attended, whether the attendees reflected a representative demographic of the electorate, or whether barriers (e.g., digital access) might have excluded some voices. Feedback from the forum was collected via surveys, which the group claims were not votes but a method to inform the selection panel’s decision. However, their website indicates respondents were asked to “rate their most preferred candidate,” which resembles a voting process. This inconsistency, compounded by the lack of transparency on how feedback was weighted and used in the final decision, creates further ambiguity.

[Insert long text here]

[Insert long text here]