Trevor Kaine makes one or two pertinent points in his public resignation statement. But both the timing and his personal motives must be questioned.
In saying that he could not longer tolerate Chief Minister Kate Carnell’s autocratic, dictatorial style, he cited a list of matters, directly and indirectly, which should be of concern to Canberrans: the “”futsal slab”, Bruce Stadium, the Hall rural-blocks development, the Manuka mall development, the way Royal Canberra was demolished, the virtual abolition of the two critical scrutiny committees of the Legislative Assembly, the Feel the Power slogan. Many of the matters relate to process rather than the result, but if more open and consultative processes had been followed results could have been different.
There are major difficulties with the methods of the Carnell Government on development. It is often developer-led. The Hall proposal is a good example. A developer comes up with a scheme and then reaps the benefit of an exclusive deal whereby a public asset is delivered into the developers hands. It is not as if the schemes have great intellectual originality. It does not take much to suggest carving up a big farm into saleable rural blocks, or to covert a car-park to retail and office space. These developments should go to open tender to maximise returns to the public. Further a level of government restraint is required in the wider community interest. With empty retail sites all over town, the Manuka development was unwise. But the Carnell Government did not listen.
The futsal slab seemed to appear overnight with no consultation or expressions of interest. The Bruce Stadium development has not had a demonstrable return to the ACT and has precluded Australian rules games.
Feel the Power was widely criticised as a slogan at the time of its launch, yet it was made the Territory’s number-plate slogan without any consideration of public opinion.
The reshaping of the committee system undermines the legislature’s check over the executive. The Public Accounts and the Scrutiny of Bills Committees should be separate committees like they are in other parliaments. There functions cannot be done properly while subsumed in portfolio committees.
These are all matters for concern. The more so because one independent voice — that of Michael Moore — has been subsumed with the committees.
But one really has to question whether these concerns were Mr Kaine’s primary motivation. His own statement gives him away.
He says, “”Feeling the power of Carnell is nothing new to me. I endured that for two of the previous three years.”
If he felt like that before the last election, why did he stand again? Having stood again and won his seat almost solely because of the Liberal banner he refuses to accept decisions of that party. The real reason for the resignation is, in his own words, “”In this Assembly, the Government of the day sees fit to assign me absolutely nothing.”.
He wanted a ministry or at least the chair of a committee. But the ministry went to Mr Moore. Having not got an office Mr Kaine has resigned from the party. Presumably, if he had got the ministry or the chair of a committee, he would have stayed. That appears to be the true catalyst for the resignation, not the concerns over the nature of government.
It was his personal quarrel with Mrs Carnell that has caused the resignation.
It was an ungraceful and ungrateful act. It was Mrs Carnell’s popularity with the electorate that resulted in seven Liberals being elected, arguably one of them Mr Kaine, and in to government. Mr Kaine came third on primary votes and was only elected because of an accident in the way that preferences flowed under the Robson rotation element of the Hare-Clark system. It was the fact that he was a Liberal (moreover a Liberal in a Carnell-led team) that got him elected.
Constructive criticism from within would have been a more honourable route, because all governments have their faults. This route would have kept faith with voters who, rightly or wrongly, gave Mrs Carnell a vote of confidence, especially on the fundamental economic issues. Indeed, voters have a right to feel cheated. Certainly, Louise Littlewood who fell behind Mr Kaine by just a handful of votes has a right to feel cheated.
The honourable course for Mr Kaine, if he could not abide working with Mrs Carnell would be to leave the Assembly altogether.
Now he is on the cross bench. This will change the dynamic of the Assembly. Mrs Carnell and her remaining colleagues may well sigh relief. They may feel that party-room discussion can be more constructive without him. By going voluntarily, he might have prevented a show-down and a martyr-creating expulsion which was on the cards after his very public contrariness over policy.
Mr Kaine has said he will not vote for a Labor Chief Minister so the absolute numbers in the Assembly remain the same. None the less, the two major parties now have six MLAs each. This might make it easier for the Osborne independents to support Labor’s Jon Stanhope. None the less, the Liberals got 10 per cent more vote than Labor, and the Osborne group must give that some respect.
On the cross-bench, Mr Kaine’s attacks on the government will carry less weight. They will be seen as sour grapes. Legislatively, he may help defeat economically dry agenda items by siding with Labor and the Osborne group, but that would require some credibility-sapping reversals of his stated economic beliefs. But the social issues that he opposes Mrs Carnell (heroin, euthanasia, abortion, prostitution, censorship and so on) are either off the legislative agenda or there is enough Labor support for the Carnell position to nullify Mr Kaine’s vote.
Mr Kaine’s resignation from the Liberal Party came four months too late.
Mrs Carnell should resist any plea for the equivalent staff of other cross-benchers. The public, who would be paying for the staff, did not elect him as a cross-bencher.