The retirement of independent ACT Michael Moore and the movement to the crossbench of National Party MP Bob Katter highlight of the huge difference in potential between independents in the two jurisdictions.
Federally, an independent verges on the powerless. In the ACT, on the other hand an independent has the potential to be an enormous force against abuses of power by an the major parties.
Katter’s move to the backbench will change nothing. He could hardly be less forthright in his criticism of the direction of the Government. It is possible he will be even less influential as an independent because the media will no longer seek him out as a controversial person who kicks his own side.
In federal politics the lower house which determines the Government is elected on a single-member constituency basis. It verges on the impossible for a person to stand and win as an independent. In the past two decades, only Ted Mack, Peter Andren and Phil Cleary have stood for the House from nomination time as independents and been elected. Others have moved from major parties, like Katter. But with 147 or 148 members, the government of the day has usually had a majority that would subsume the three or four independents in the House.
True, it is different in the Senate, which has multi-member electorates enabling a significant number of independents and minor party candidates to win, but the Senate is a House of review and it does not form governments. Moreover, even if the crossbenchers in the Senate combine with the opposition, the best they can do is to block or amend government legislation. They cannot initiate and push through legislation of their own because the government can simply use its majority in the House of Representatives to block it.
The position in the ACT is radically different. The system empowers crossbenchers in a way unparalleled in the rest of Australia. The combination of multi-member electorates and a single legislative House bestows great power on independents.
Typically, in the ACT, each major party gets two seats in each of the three electorates and one or other of them gets a third seat in the seven-member constituency of Molonglo. It means one major party has six and the other major party has seven seats in the 17-member House. It leaves four seats available for independents and minor parties. They inevitably hold the balance of power. But it is a different balance of power from that in the federal parliament.
In the ACT, it is possible for some of the independents or minor party MPs to side with the Opposition to initiate and pass significant legislation that the government disagrees with.
To some extent, in his early days, Michael Moore did precisely this. In more recent time the Greens, Paul Osborne and Dave Rugendyke have also dabbled around the edges with pet projects. Osborne acknowledges that more it taught him at quite a bit about initiating legislative change, particularly about the rules of government itself.
In the ACT it is clear that the crossbenchers did not exercise their power enough to initiate rules for that would prevent major parties from covering up, acting in an unaccountable way, and appointing a mates to various boards and commissions. Fiascos were created by both parties.
Whoever seeks to replace Michael Moore should do more than say I am opposed to the major parties and have a few pet projects. They should put forward some detailed plans about making government more open and accountable – – with better freedom of information laws, more power for the auditor-general and greater scrutiny of the executive appointments and executive regulations – – because in the ACT, unlike in federal parliament, crossbenchers could actually achieve it.