The call by Greens MLA Kerrie Tucker for an increase in the size of the ACT Legislative Assembly has merit and should be viewed on the merits. Unfortunately, this does not appear to be happening. The snag is the attitude of Labor leader John Stanhope who says he does not want to do anything “”that would reverse the painfully slow acceptance of the Assembly in the minds and hearts of the people”.
Mr Stanhope’s approach reveals a Catch-22. If the Assembly retains its present 17 Members, it is likely that the quality of representation will suffer and that the talent pool for Government Ministers and the Opposition members who shadow them will be shallower. If that happens, the people will take even longer to accept the Assembly.
In any event, the doubts over the acceptance of the Assembly arise as much out of its history as out of the performance of current members. A core of doubt arises from the fact there was a referendum in 1977 that voted against self-government and that the Federal Government enacted self-government without a further vote and hammered the place financially. That in turn resulted in a fractured first Assembly when people foolishly voted for people who stood under the anti-self-government banner but with other agendas. Mr Stanhope is right to be concerned about the doubts, however. They must be dealt with by pointing out that the 1977 referendum is not longer a valid gauge of ACT opinion. The people who voted then would make a small proportion of today’s population. Further, the halcyon days of direct rule with lots of spare money for Canberra were going to end self-government or not, so self-government should not be seen as the cause of later ACT Governments having to tighten the belt. Indeed a directly ruling federal government would have tightened the belt more.
With that objection put aside, Ms Tucker’s proposal deserves to be looked at more closely. Population growth since 1988 when self-government was enacted would warrant an extra two or three members. The House need not increase with population as a matter of course, but there is a case for it in the ACT for some time yet to build a critical mass. The people of the ACT are among the most under-represented in Australia. On the federal front we do better than NSW and Victoria per head, but at the state and local level we have fewer representatives than anywhere else.
We do not want a local level of government, but it would be reasonable to have a few more MLAs to deal with the increasing burden of representation and for them to have enough time to deal with the work of committees, government and opposition.
We must have an odd number of MLAs to ensure stable government, so an increase of four with no more for a long time seems reasonable rather than two now and two later.
Ms Tucker’s proposal comes after a suggestion arising from the redistribution of electoral boundaries that Ginninderra become the seven-member electorate and Molonglo become one of the two five-member electorates. That would make Ms Tucker’s re-election more difficult. Her support base is in Molonglo, but in a five-member seat she would require a higher quota of 16 per cent, rather than the present 12 per cent, of the vote. If each electorate were increased to seven it would make her re-election safer. However, it would mean, most likely, six of 21 members being minor party or independent. A better option might be to have three five-member electorates and one six-member electorate which would mean most likely four minors. The later would provide for more stable government without the tyranny of the majority.