The ALP’s threat to block Supply in the ACT has been quite wrongly associated with the Federal Coalition’s blocking of Supply 20 years ago that led to the dismissal of the Whitlam Government.
The ACT ALP has been accused of political hypocrisy for on one hand maintaining its rage against the actions of the Coalition and the Governor-General and yet on the week of the 20th anniversary of that event threatening to block Supply itself. It is a misconceived accusation. The events are entirely different. The essential difference is that the ACT has only one House of Parliament, so the ACT ALP’s threat takes on a different character. It is constitutionally quite proper, under present arrangements, for an Opposition in the representative chamber to block any legislation, including a Budget.
As it happens, the two Independents, Michael Moore and Paul Osborne, have stated that they will not block the Carnell Government’s Budget, so the matter is academic for now. None the less, the incident reveals some flaws in the Self-Government Act. That Act of the Federal Parliament is the ACT’s de-facto constitution.
The ALP has said it will vote against the Budget unless the Government inserts in it an extra $3.8 million in education funding. It says it will not propose an amendment itself to get the extra money and will not support Mr Moore’s amendment to the same effect. Labor is taking an all-or-nothing approach because the Self-Government Act says only Ministers can propose money Bills and amendments are permitted to them only if their intent is not to increase the amount of public money being spent or charged. There is merit in this view.
Both in the ACT and federally, Supply should be an all-or-nothing affair. It is too easy for an Opposition to pick over a Government’s Budget taking the credit for reducing taxes and increasing spending without having to take overall responsibility for government.
That said, there are some difficulties with the ALP’s position. Any successful move to block a Budget in a lower or representative House must be seen in classic Westminster as a matter of confidence requiring the Government to resign. However, by couching its no-confidence motion in the form of a vote against the Budget, the ALP is avoiding the special provisions in the Self-Government Act which go with a no-confidence motion. No-confidence motions must be passed by an absolute majority and seven days notice must be given.
The two independents have extended their guarantee of stable government to include both a guarantee not to vote against Supply and not to vote for a no-confidence motion. That is entirely consistent.
However, it puts Mr Moore in a bind. On one hand, he cannot vote against a Budget that fails, in his view, to provide enough for education. On the other hand any line-by-line amendment of the Budget to increase education funding would probably run foul of the Self-Government Act and any sensible Speaker would rule it out of order.
The situation reveals defects in the Self-Government Act which require change for the stable government of the Territory. Clearly, taxing and spending are matters for the Executive. Significant spending and taxing matters should be put only by Ministers. It follows that attempts to block or amend should be treated as matters of confidence in a government. It would mean that both Mr Moore’s and the ALP’s approach would amount to no-confidence motions. In these circumstances, an absolute majority and seven days’ notice should apply. Moreover, in the interests of stability, all no-confidence motions should name the new Chief Minister.
Changes to this effect would at once guarantee a Government its Budget, or failing that a reasonably seamless transition to new Government which itself would have its Budget guaranteed. It would avoid the possibility of a Government defeat on its Budget without a replacement Government being ready, which could force a disruptive early election.
Naturally, there would still be political horse-trading with independents and minor parties over measures a government might adopt in a Budget, but that process ends once the Budget is on the floor of the House..
Then the Government stands or falls on it and in any event is ultimately judged when it faces the people at the end of its fixed-three year term. Therein lies stability, responsibility and accountability.
In this case, Michael Moore has failed to get his objective in the pre-Budget discussions and would have to accept both the Budget and the Government as a package, or reject them both a support a new Government.
The Government and its Budget should stand or fall together. This is especially important in the ACT where the fairness of the electoral system will usually result in minority governments. That is fine as a checking force and a force to separate legislative and executive functions, but it should come with stabilising mechanisms.