It was a contest for the most Machiavellian conduct in the ACT Legislative Assembly yesterday. Was Rosemary Follett, who first raised the name of Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527), right in awarding the prize to Michael Moore? She did this because Moore’s proposal for a new committee system _ with himself as chair of the most important one _ had the numbers in the Assembly. Or should the prize go to the Greens voting for a Liberal Government _ on purely local issues, of course, but none the less sending a clear message to Federal Labor that Labor does not have a Gaia-given right to Green preferences or votes? Or should it go to Kate Carnell who within an hour of taking government announced the cupboard is bare, the revenue is down, we will have to tighten the belt? Or should it go to Rosemary Follett herself who _ silent about the sexual harassment charge hanging over the head of a Liberal MLA throughout the whole campaign _ suddenly started talking yesterday about a code of ethics for MLAs? Was is parliamentary privilege that enabled her to talk so freely or is there some new circumstance in her parliamentary party that now makes it possible for her side to be so self-righteous without being charged with hypocrisy? L-plates Only Paul Osborne _ with, as Ms Follett said, L-plates on _ is ineligible.
The prize can be judged on two levels _ one in the true sense of the much-maligned Machiavelli and the other in the popular sense meaning scheming evil-doer. The advice Machiavelli gave to princes (or these days politicians) was to be practical for the greater virtue of the stability of the state. He had seen Italian principalities torn apart through the virtuous but incompetent rulers _ to the great suffering of the people. So his advice was: don’t worry about small virtues if the practice of them will ruin you and make your subjects miserable. On the latter test, Moore would argue he is entitled to forget the virtue of modesty and say that for the good of the ACT he should chair the planning and environment committee because the Greens will have us living in small boxes next to a light-rail station; the Liberals will sell the lot to developers and Labor will flip between residents and developers so no-one will know where they are.
The Greens could argue that the virtue of voting on the merit of the issue before them must be sacrificed for the good of the world. Carnell can argue that for the good of ACT’s budget she can drag out the cliche of in-coming governments that “”they left the cupboard bare”. And Follett can argue that a code of ethics overshadows a lapse of any minor virtue. The task of judging them on the popular meaning of Machiavellian remains with the populace, but let’s give away this foolish notion that the ACT Legislative Assembly is full of political amateurs. Six years after self-government they fit the 500-year-old pattern of their profession, at least as described by the master himself.