Some of the issues raised at the inquiry into the future of governance it he ACT this week were more ridiculous than sublime. It would be a shame if they over-shadowed important questions of they way we govern ourselves in the territory.
Among the important questions were whether the Legislative Assembly should be increased from 17 members to 21 and whether the term should be extended from three years to four years.
Among the less sublime were whether there had been a backlash against various pieces of legislation that had been seen as anti-male and whether this had resulted in fewer successful women members in the 1998 election, as asserted by the Speaker Greg Cornwell. The theory is hardly worth discussing, especially as six out of the 13 women candidates in Molonglo got more first preference votes than Mr Cornwell, and Mr Cornwell only retained his seat on the over-quota of a woman who happened to get by far the highest percentage vote of any candidate ACT-wide.
Another proposal was to have a direct election for the Chief Minister, rather than have the elected members of the Legislative Assembly elect the Chief Minister as is the case now. That proposal was put by Attorney-General Gary Humphries. It may work in the United States. It has had grave problems in Israel. In a small polity like the ACT with its limited talent pool, the result would be counter-productive. Out of the 17 members, Kate Carnell and Jon Stanhope are with little doubt head and shoulders above their colleagues. A direct election would result in the removal of the best or second-best talent in the Assembly from public contribution, something the ACT could ill-afford. Or should the second-placegetter in the direct election of the Chief Minister automatically become Leader of the Opposition? Or should both contenders also be allowed to run as ordinary Assembly members as well as Chief Minister?
Mrs Carnell argues that a direct election for Chief Minister would lessen the adversary nature of politics to which many Canberrans object. Politics may well be adversary and often its adversary nature sinks to the petty. However, it is only through the adversary nature of politics do ideas get thoroughly tested. A co-operative town council might be fine for a smaller polity far more concerned with the practicalities of getting water to flow in and sewage to flow out, but it is not suitable for a polity the size of the ACT where philosophies and ideals are at stake in fields such as education, criminal law and health.
As to the size of the House, a call for an increase in proportion to population is too simplistic. Improved technology and all the other arguments that have applied to the down-sizing and greater efficiency of white-collar industry should apply to politicians. But there has been ample demonstration of the argument that 17 provides too small a talent pool.
The argument for four years has not been made out, and certainly should not go ahead without a referendum. Indeed, there should be a referendum before the Assembly is increased, if only to set a formula for future increases. The size and term of the House are constitutionally fundamental. Politicians are too prone to rigging the system to be trusted to make the decision without approval by referendum.