As a platform for independents, we don’t believe it is our role to “select” candidates to represent our communities. We believe this responsibility sits firmly with the community. Instead, we have an endorsement process. Independents for Canberra aims to transform how politics is done in the ACT. We have codified the change we seek through our 10 shared principles.

Our endorsement process is designed to assess how aligned each potential candidate is to these shared principles, which are non-optional expectations of our candidates. This is the process devised and administered by the Candidate Endorsement Committee:
1. Prospective candidates submit a nomination pack, including a police check, credit check, proof of residency and two personal referees.
2. The Committee interviews all prospective candidates to discuss their views and past actions in relation to the principles.
3. If no clear conflict with the principles is found, each prospective candidate is given the opportunity to speak at a Community Town Hall where they can share their vision and respond to questions from people in their electorate.
4. Endorsement is then provided if the Committee is confident the candidate is fully committed to the principles. This assessment is based on the candidate's personal history, their interview and feedback from Community Town Hall attendees. The Committee may disendorse any candidate who fails to demonstrate commitment to the 10 shared principles at any time.

The Independents for Canberra (IFC) endorsement process reflects an innovative approach to community-driven politics but raises questions regarding transparency, inclusivity, and consistency. The group positions itself as not “selecting” candidates but rather endorsing those aligned with its 10 shared principles. However, the endorsement process outlined by the Candidate Endorsement Committee suggests significant decision-making authority, effectively making the committee gatekeepers for who can represent the platform.

  The Candidate Endorsement Committee comprises four members—Leigh Cox, Robert Knight, Danielle Glatz, and Malcolm Baalman—each with relevant professional and political experience. However, it remains unclear why these four individuals were deemed the most suitable for this role, how they were selected, or whether broader diversity considerations were factored into the composition of the committee. For example, the committee does not appear to be gender-balanced, and there is little information about other diversity metrics, such as cultural or socioeconomic backgrounds, that could reflect the community more broadly.

The endorsement process itself includes several steps, such as a nomination pack, interviews, and participation in a Community Town Hall. However, key details remain unclear. For instance, IFC has not disclosed how the opportunity to apply was advertised, how prospective candidates were identified, or what efforts were made to ensure the process reached underrepresented groups or diverse voices. Similarly, the number of applications received and the demographics of applicants are unknown, leaving questions about how accessible the process was and whether potential barriers to participation were addressed.

The emphasis on adherence to the 10 shared principles is central to the endorsement process, yet IFC has not clarified where these principles originated, how they were chosen, or why they were prioritized over other possible guiding values. Without this context, it is difficult to assess whether the principles adequately reflect the community's needs and values. Moreover, the interviews conducted with prospective candidates lacked transparency regarding the questions asked, how responses were assessed, and whether the approach was consistent across all candidates.

The Community Town Hall is another notable feature of the process, designed to provide candidates with a platform to engage with voters and receive feedback. However, IFC has not provided details about how the event was promoted, who attended, or whether attendees represented a diverse cross-section of the electorate. Feedback collection methods and their subsequent use by the committee to inform decisions remain ambiguous. This raises concerns about the potential for feedback to be skewed toward specific cohorts rather than representing the broader community.

The final endorsement decision relies on the committee’s subjective judgment of whether candidates demonstrate a commitment to the principles, with no clear or consistent criteria for how this determination is made. Given the limited size and non-diverse composition of the committee, this subjectivity could undermine the credibility of the process.

Overall, while IFC’s process aims to shift away from traditional candidate selection methods and prioritise principle-driven endorsements, its reliance on a small, somewhat insular committee and the lack of transparency in critical areas—such as candidate outreach, assessment criteria, and feedback mechanisms—raises concerns about inclusivity and accountability. Future iterations of the process would benefit from greater clarity, broader community engagement, and mechanisms to ensure diversity and reduce subjectivity.

[Insert long text here]

[Insert long text here]