Does the French water business really think Deputy Chief Minister Tony De Domenico is worth an offer so high that he cannot refuse and must to leave politics? Maybe. But the offer was certainly made that much more attractive by the fact that De Domenica faced the loss of his ministry on the first sitting of the Assembly this year.
Independent Michael Moore made it clear he would move a motion of no confidence in him over his summary removal of Save Our City convener Jacqui Rees from the Kingston Foreshore Authority.
Labor and the Greens could easily have joined the motion because of its merit (which was fairly solid) or because Oppositions will take any opportunity to seize a ministerial scalp.
Those in the Liberal Party vying for his job should think look at the history of previous occupants before leaping. None came near the big job.
Paul Whalan resigned finding the financial sacrifice too much. Bernard Collaery lost his seat at the election after occupying the office. Wayne Berry had to resign after a no-confidence motion and his successor David Lamont also lost his seat at the next election after taking up the office.
Chief Minister Kate Carnell no doubt would prefer the more dignified exit that happened rather than the exit that Moore had in mind for him and for which Moore believed he really deserved and which he had a strong chance of getting.
In the De Domenico dismissing of Rees, Carnell played Henry II and Rees played Thomas A’Beckett, Archbishop of Canterbury.
“”Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?” Carnell cried in anger and frustration at Archbishop Rees who had the capacity to call on other authority to defy the will of the state.
But the summary murder of the priest was not quite what Carnell had in mind _ not because she not want Archbishop out of the way, but because this method of removal was likely to cause all sorts of unwanted complications.
There the analogy ends. Henry II did not have a business community to rescue the murderous knights, as Carnell has with De Domenico. The real Henry II remained answerable to the other authority. Carnell, on the other hand, will not have to walk barefoot in the snow.
Mr De Domenico’s exit is unfortunate for the theoreticians of democracy and a boon for the theoreticians of statecraft.
There is more to democracy than an election every three years with the winning party doing as it pleases.
Other ingredients include the rule of law; accountability of the executive to the legislature; the requirement for procedural fairness and less strictly, the notion that governments govern for all.
Governments can be made accountable for all but the last of these in the middle of the term, either in the courts or in the legislature. Governments can only be brought to account for the last at election time, and even then they can escape significant chastisement because there is no better alternative, as is the case in the ACT.
None the less, it is still important to impress upon governments which are elected by the people that they hold office for the people, and that, even if they think they can win the next election, ultimately a host of little things can build up to make a government unacceptable.
Interestingly, Rees annoyed the government over planning questions, and despite what from all accounts appears to be a solid contribution on the Kingston committee she was dismissed from it because, on De Domenico’s own admission, she did not fall in to the government’s line on all planning issues.
It was an admission that De Domenico could not deal will dissent in a grown-up way, even though Carnell herself has displayed considerable skill in at least listening to dissent and acknowledging the rights of dissenters to dissent.
On the planning question, both this government and its predecessor have appeared exasperated at dissent, and those who want open slather development have expressed even greater exasperation.
In all three cases it has been the wrong reaction. Indeed, rather than harp on about obstruction in the cases of development that has been frustrated by dissent and exaggerate by saying the dissents seem to object to everything, they should rather look at two more constructive questions: why are the dissenters dissenting and more importantly what developments are going ahead without dissent.
The latter is the great undiscussed question and it provides a lot of answers.
If you look at a map of Canberra now and compare to one of 15 years ago you will see very large areas of development (in the existing city envelope, so it qualifies as in-fill) where there has not been one jot of protest. Why? What distinguishes these developments from the ones that have drawn protest?
Examples are swathes of medium-density developments within 6km of Woden and Belconnen Town Centres, medium density projects along Ginninderra Drive (and there is room for much more) and significant pockets of land near various suburban shopping centres.
Some of the distinguishing features of the protestless developments are as follows:
DOT Open, competitive tendering or auction for raw land.
DOT Residential densities that do not intrude unduly on existing nearby residents.
DOT No intrusion on land that contains cultural, natural or scientific values.
DOT No destruction of buildings or streetscapes of significant architectural merit.
DOT No unnecessary wholesale destruction of livable, useable dwellings.
DOT Good design (though admittedly many projects with poor design have not drawn much protest).
Following those guidelines there are many pockets of land available in the ACT for development of higher density dwellings and for offices and retail. No-one is stopping diligent developers making a good living out of doing so, using their brains, imagination and skill in delivering good residences, offices and retail space to the market.
There is plenty of clapped-out buffalo country in the existing envelope that fitted and fits these criteria. The whole of North Lyneham, for example, was developed without a murmur and there is other similar land. (Though there was an exception with some unwarranted protest over sensible development in North Watson.)
What is being objected to?
DOT Wholesale changes to large areas of suburbs.
DOT Heritage and environmental destruction.
DOT Underhand deals whereby people with leases for sporting, religious, community or low-density housing try to profiteer by doing deals with government a developers for medium or high density housing without paying the proper competitive, level-playing-field price for the land, to the detriment of taxpayers.
And bear in mind these objections have obtained considerable legitimacy through their vindication in two major inquiries (Landsdown and Stein).
It is possible for the government to get it right in this hitherto vexed area.
The proof of this is the sadly unsung success of the Government in the hi-tech area, for which Carnell deserves great credit (perhaps because she did not let any of her ministers near it).
Symonston (opposite Fyshwick) is going ahead leaps and bounds as a hi-tech area. Large areas along Hindmarsh Drive are being developed. Is there a protest? Is there a murmur? No. Vacant land within the city envelope is being developed.
The Government should listen to the silence (as well as the protest) and learn.
Instead of looking at the development that has drawn protest, we should look at the development that has not. Development per se is not being opposed; there is plenty of room for it. Indeed, there is some irony in the fact that Rees herself was accepting and actively promoting development in her role on the Kinston committee.