The call of “”let’s have a referendum” on self-government was made at this week’s National Capital Futures conference.
An initial reaction might be what a waste of money; it would prove nothing; the Feds would not change anything anyway; people would just vote no; democracy is a duty, like it or not; and so on.
On reflection, though, a referendum with the next election would be very helpful. A referendum creates an enormous stamp of legitimacy (and conversely, illegitimacy) on something. It is a legitimacy that far transcends what elected politicians do, even if the matter is specifically covered in their platform, as self-government was in federal Labor’s 1983 platform.
But people cite the results of a referendum as far more conclusive.
On November 27, 1977, a referendum on self-government in the ACT voted 63.5 against; 31.1 for; 5.4 for local government and 1.6 informal.
This is still cited, 20 years later, as conclusive evidence of an anti-self-government sentiment.
To have voted in that referendum you would have to be at least 38 years old and lived in Canberra for 20 years. That is not a very high percentage of ACT residents. And many, of course, would have changed their mind.
For example, in 1977, opinion polls showed large majorities in favour of the monarchy. Now a republic is the go. Also, in 1988 a Canberra Times-Datacol poll showed the anti-self-government vote down to 27 per cent (with 39 per cent wanting a council and 31 wanting state-type self-government).
It is absurd to keep citing the 1977 result as evidence for present opinions. Yet people do it all the time. It frequently crops up in the Letters to the Editor column and on talk-back radio. It means that the 1977 result taints the present system 20 years on. It undermines its legitimacy. That is why another referendum is a good idea. It would remove that illegitimacy. Perhaps it is the only way to remove that illegitimacy.
It is likely, of course, that if a referendum were held today, that people would reject self-government. But in the lead up to the referendum there would be widespread debate about self-government. At present that debate is conducted only by a few. The mass debate does not take place unless the broad mass of people are directly affected in the form of having to vote one way or the other.
In that debate, several pertinent points would be made very forcefully.
Some of these are:
Direct federal rule today does not mean a return to the halcyon days of the NCDC when our streets were paved with real asphalt. It would mean direct rule by a member of the Howard outer ministry. David Kemp, perhaps. Or maybe a member of the National Party, like Ron Boswell. Or it could even be tacked on to the portfolio of a Cabinet Minister — someone who has expressed a deep interest in Canberra, like John Fahey or even the Prime Minister.
It would not be the halcyon days of cheap Commissioner for Housing loans for all-comers (including the federal minister in charge of the ACT).
It would not be the boom days of great federal projects like the National Library, the High Court, the National Gallery and Parliament House with jobs, trickle down and multiplier effects throughout the city.
You see, the difference in the economic fortunes of this city may have centred around a fulcrum of the beginning of 1989 which just happened to be the time self-government began. But that was a mere coincidence, not the cause of the downturn. The real cause was that around that time federal money coming into the city started to dry up. Parliament House was complete and salami slicing efficiencies were imposed on the federal Public Service. Since then the slashing has increased.
In the light of this, who would now seriously contemplate the handing back of the rule of Canberra to the very federal ministry which has been so responsible for treating the city with such contempt? Moreover the hand-back would be to a minister answerable only to an electorate far away.
The alternative, the popular cry for a council-style government, also has difficulties. Many imagine there are huge savings in cutting down on the trappings of government. But the trappings — running the Assembly and the executive — are quite trivial. They amount to $7.5 million a year; whereas the total provision of ACT government services is $1,200 million.
Whether it’s a council, a federal minister with advisers or a full-scale state-type assembly, they are all going to spend about $7.5 million. Any difference will be trivial. The real question is what effect the method of government might have on the efficiency in the spending of the $1,200 million. That depends on the quality of people which may be fortuitous or may be a result of the system.
There are some good points to our present system. Everyone yaps on about having only two tiers of government in Australia to improve efficiency. In the ACT we have that. Our Assembly is a town council, as well as a state parliament.
We have an in-built check through the Hare-Clark system which usually provides a balance of power for minor parties or independents. And this has a further check in that the main Opposition party has to join with the minors before they can pass new law, discipline wayward ministers; disallow ministerial regulations and so on. A beneficial side-effect is that the Opposition can get an active role in creating legislation, rather than sitting on its hands opposing for the sake of opposing for three years.
A council, on the other hand, would have no legislative power. That means the people of the ACT would get no say on things like shopping and licensing hours, domestic violence orders and stalking; speed limits and so on. We would be disenfranchised — limited to administering the spending of limited money and little power over regulating human behaviour.
But the present system still has difficulties, especially in the quality and talent in our MLAs. The trouble is that the prize (being chief minister or an MLA) is too low and the cost (giving up business, profession or career) is too high for many quality people.
But this could be overcome. We could have a direct election for the Chief Minister. Major parties would have to put up a good candidate rather than party hack working his or her way up through the numbers game of the party machine and party room. Once elected a Chief Minister should be able to select ministers from outside the House to open the talent pool. We could have some or all part-time MLAs so they do not have to give up a career.
Both these ideas present difficulties of accountability and conflicts of interest, but they could be overcome.
At present though we have a democratic illogicality. Seventy-six per cent of people in the latest poll said they wanted a majority government, but 63 per cent in Brindabella and about 45 per cent in other seats said they would not vote for a major party. It is clearly a cry for change, mixed with a suspicion of power without checks.
Every system will throw up its share of fools and charlatans, the trick is to reduce the percentage of them. Let’s frame some questions for a referendum.