The ACT Legislative Assembly will vote today on a no-confidence motion in the Chief Minister and Treasurer Kate Carnell. At immediate issue is the spending of money on the redevelopment of Bruce Stadium without the approval of the Assembly. The broader question is whether there ought to be a change of government.
If Mrs Carnell had only been Treasurer the Assembly could have voted no-confidence in her as Treasurer and the Chief Minister heading the government could have stayed in power. But Mrs Carnell holds both positions. Under the Self-Government Act, a federal law which in effect is the ACT’s Constitution, a successful motion of self-confidence in the Chief Minister results in every minister’s position being vacated. It is then for the Assembly to vote for a new Chief Minister and new ministry. A Chief Minister cannot call an early election.
All the Liberal MLAs have stated that they will not accept the nomination for Chief Minister. So a successful no-confidence motion means a change of government. In any event a no-confidence motion in the Chief Minister would ordinarily signal a change of government. This puts a different complexion on today’s vote. It cannot be seen just as just a Bruce Stadium issue. It has to be seen as a change-of-government issue.
That being so, several questions have to be asked.
Was the Government’s conduct over Bruce Stadium so illegal, reprehensible or constituting a breach of trust that it should lose office?
Is the Opposition in a state of readiness to take government?
Would the people of the ACT be best served by a change of government?
Those questions, particularly must be asked by the five cross-bench members in whose fate the government lies.
On that score, three votes are pre-determined. Michael Moore is now a Minister and will vote with the Government barring absolute calamity. His view is now coloured to the extent that he cannot exercise independent judgment in the matter. His vote for Mrs Carnell is a foregone conclusion.
Former Liberal now Canberra United member was toppled from the leadership by Mrs Carnell and thrown out of the ministry by her. His resentment and desire to get even is well-known. His capacity to exercise independent judgment in the matter must also be questioned and his vote against Mrs Carnell is a foregone conclusion.
Greens MLA Kerrie Tucker sits naturally on the left of politics and needs little excuse to jump to Labor. Her vote against Mrs Carnell, too, is a foregone conclusion.
Independents Paul Osborne wants to see the report of the Auditor-General on Bruce Stadium. He will vote for Mrs Carnell at least for now.
That leaves Indepdendent Dave Rugendyke. He has Mrs Carnell’s fate in his hands.
He (and the others if they change their mind) have to decide whether her conduct is such that she should not continue governing and that the reins of government should pass to Labor.
The Bruce Stadium redevelopment has been an exercise in poor financial judgment based upon a desire to achieve political aggrandisement. It has been an exercise in can-do politics. That is fine for the private sector. Investors expect risk. It is not good enough for the public sector. The Government has stated the redevelopment would be privately funded but the public now has to pick up the tab. It was foolishly overdone. The stadium needed some work, but not to that scale.
In financing the work, the Government went ahead even when it knew private financing was not forthcoming. It should have come back to the Assembly, explained all and sought extra money. But an election was looming. So it charged ahead.
In doing so, it engaged in the processes laid down in the old Audit Act for investment. Those sorts of investments do not need parliamentary approval. However, a new Financial Management Act had since been passed to provide more flexibility and accountability. It required investment guidelines to be issued by the Treasurer before investments could be made. A guideline to carry the Bruce investment had not been issued. So the Bruce investment did not comply with the Financial Management Act. But it would only have been a formality to have made it comply. There are no criminal penalties in the Act. It is a procedural requirement, not a criminal offence.
For failing to comply the Government deserves a severe rebuke. Further, it deserves chastisement for its whole attitude to development. It is an attitude that abhors process. It was seen in Kinlyside, Section 41 Manuka, the Ainslie Primary School and other developments. Most of the Government’s strife seems to involve development.
But there should not be a change government, just 18 months after an election. Labor did disastrously in that election. Labor should earn government through an election. Labor’s leader Jon Stanhope has wisely worked to a full-term plan. To date he has done much machinery work, as evidenced in last weekend’s conference. But not much policy work has been done. If he got government today would he implement the policies that failed at the last election?
The ACT will not benefit from a change of Government now. After the horrors of the first Assembly when cobbled-together majorities threw governments in and out on political whim, the ACT can do without a reputation for political instability with its attendant adverse affect on business. That reputation will be on the head of Dave Rugendyke if he votes for the no-confidence motion over a matter that rates as poor administration rather than criminal illegality.
But if Mrs Carnell keeps office today, as she should, the community has a right to expect some contrition and a change of the way her government deals with important development projects. It wants more openness. If not, she will rightly get pasted by Jon Stanhope and Labor at the next election.