The naming and reshaping of the ACT Government by Chief Minister Kate Carnell has some good elements and some disturbing ones. The timing, of course, was out of her control, but it is unfortunate that she has proposed a change to fundamentals of government before the Pettit inquiry into self-government has had a chance to report. However, the Self-Government Act sets down the election date, and the timing of setting in place a new government has been governed by that.
The fundamental change on offer is to change the relationship between the cross-benches and the executive. Mrs Carnell proposes several powerful executive committees each chaired by a member of the cross-bench. When the recommendations from the committee come to Cabinet, the chair of the committee gets a vote on it. Each committee chair will get some extra pay and extra staff. The offer has put Independent Michael Moore on the spot. He wanted a full ministry, but with the right to dissociate himself from Cabinet decisions outside his portfolio — real power without lots of independence and little over all responsibility. The new offer is almost the reverse — his independence will be compromised for very little power. Getting an occasional vote in Cabinet is a far cry from ministerial power which gives the holder discretion under many statutes to appoint people of choice to positions, to grant money to organisations of choice, to permit or refuse applicants to do certain things.
If Mr Moore, or Paul Osborne or Dave Rugendyke, take up the job, can they still call themselves “”Independent”. The other cross-bencher, Kerrie Tucker, as a Greens Party MLA is in a slightly different position. She was not elected on a platform of “”independence” but on one to pursue a quite detailed list of Green objectives. To keep faith with her electors, she is obliged to pursue those objectives in the way she sees as best. That may be on the cross-bench voting issue by issue or in loose coalition with the governing party. The latter is roughly what is on offer here.
The Government may see its integrated committee system as the hallmark of a new co-operative approach, but without Labor being at least offered a part, it cannot achieve that end. All it can do is gather up the cross-bench into a de-facto coalition government, leaving Labor as the official Opposition with no real change to typical adversary politics.
A change to adversary politics is more likely to come about through a change of behaviour on the part of MLAs and less secrecy in government, rather than a change of structure of government.
In some respects, the new executive-integrated committee system carries the danger of under-mining what hitherto had been one of the most successful elements of the self-government structure — a strong, independent committee system. The money and staff on offer to the cross-bench MLAs would be better directed to existing committees directly.
Another alarming element of the new structure is they way the Chief Minister’s Department remains the controlling influence in the Government. It is a welcome move to streamline the departments to five and have whole departments answerable to a single minister. However, the split up of powers seems to reflect rationalisation of control rather than function.
Brendan Smyth (welcome new blood) is Minister for Urban Services and Planning, but the government enterprises, which provide most of the urban services work, remain in Chief Ministers. As does the Office of Asset Management which manages land development. What is planning without land? Mr Smyth has not been offered a poisoned chalice so much as an insipid sieve.