The move by Chief Minister Kate Carnell and federal Territories Minister Warwick Smith to have an inquiry into ACT self-government poses a few dangers.
The first is that it might perpetuate the feeling of illegitimacy that surrounds the system of government in the ACT. In the ACT, whenever an example of misgovernment appears, people blame the system of government as much as the people in it. Other states have had far worse examples of misgovernment. Victoria and South Australia lost their banks; Western Australia had WA Inc; Queensland had the events leading up to the Fitzgerald inquiry and NSW had the events leading to the Wood Royal Commission. Yet after these events, elections cleared the air. People did not question the constitutional fundamentals.
The reason why people question the legitimacy of the system in the ACT appears to be the result of the 1977 referendum which overwhelmingly voted for the status quo of federal rule coupled with an elected advisory body.
It is now 20 years later. It is very likely that few Canberrans would want to place the governance on local affairs into the hands of a minister in the federal government.
It is important for the ACT to overcome this feeling of illegitimacy. That could come either with the elapse of time coupled with an improvement in the quality of personnel or it could come through another referendum. The former would be preferable. That might come about after the next election.
Opposition Leader Wayne Berry rightly points out that the Hare-Clark system has had only two elections and not had a fair chance. Further major changes can only erode confidence in the system and its legitimacy in the eyes of those governed.
Of course, it may be that the only way to improve quality is to make some changes in the system, rather than simply hoping that this election will yield a better result. It may be that the prize of being Chief Minister, Minister or MLA is too low and the cost too high for good, talented people. Such people might have to give up or postpone a very satisfying highly-paid job as a professional or businessperson.
Two suggestions coming out of last week’s National Capital Futures conference were to allow the Chief Minister to choose ministers from outside the Assembly and to have some or all of the MLAs part-time.
There may be some merit in some of these suggestions. But any changes would be better done in an evolutionary way. Moreover, there may be other less dramatic changes possible to increase the talent pool. It is very easy to point to defects in the governance of the ACT. It is easy to confuse poor government performance with having a poor system. It is also very easy to ignore the good features of the system and to ignore the occasions when the MLAs co-operate in producing good outcomes.
The ACT system has a couple of excellent attributes which should be kept.
We have only two tiers of government, not three, as elsewhere in Australia. Many people have rightly called for a reduction in the number of tiers. That has been achieved in the ACT.
The ACT system is fairly cheap. The cost of the Assembly and Executive is about $7.5 million a year. It would cost about that whether it were a council or directly ruled by a federal minister. The only cost question is how the system of government causes inefficiencies in the raising and spending of the total budget of some $1.2 billion.
Unlike five of the states the ACT does not run to an expensive Upper House (usually with some form of proportional representation) to create a check and balance in the system. Instead our Hare Clark proportional voting system gives minor parties and independents a good chance a election such that we almost invariably will have minority governments. Thus the executive is checked. Moreover, the minor party and independent MLAs are also checked in that they require the support of the Opposition to exercise their power.
Since self-government, the ACT Legislative Assembly has developed an open committee system; and fairly good freedom-of-information and whistleblower legislation.
The idea of having only a town council is perhaps superficially attractive, but its drawback is that it might still have a predominance of party politicians. A council would be the present Assembly without health, education or a legislative function. They would have to be handled somewhere, and in this climate there is no guarantee they would be done any better from a federal minister’s office.
It is not just a question of economic efficiency. The legislative function (which cannot be performed by a council) is one whereby laws are passed to apply to everyone in the territory. Those laws canvass a huge range of human conduct. That function is best done by representatives of the people being ruled.
Also the idea of reverting to NSW also has problems. The ACT has, since its creation, developed its own sense of community that is different from surrounding NSW. Thrown into the NSW melting pot, the ACT would often be out of kilter with the results of the compromises that occur in the NSW legislature with its greater range of constituents. In any event it would require a referendum in NSW (and a redistribution to accommodate ACT seats), and perhaps a nationwide referendum if the size of the ACT were to shrink below its constitutionally provided limit of 260 square kilometres.
The timing of this new inquiry — less than six months from an election — is also dubious. It might be better to see if there is significant displeasure after the election before any wholesale reform is contemplated. In any event it seems very unlikely that a properly thought-through proposal for reform could be got together in time and properly debated by the people to put to the vote in February. At best any vote could be advisory.