The two major parties and the ACT Greens have put the question of an increase in the size of the ACT Legislative Assembly on the agenda.
Greens MLA Kerrie Tucker wants an increase. She says, quite rightly that an increase would ease the workload and improve democracy. Labor and the Liberals also want an increase, but they want to avoid coping the flak from the typical knee-jerk reaction of the politician-hating public. So they watered down Ms Tucker’s motion in the previous assembly to a call for community consultation on the question.
As things stand, the ACT has the fewest politicians per head of population than anywhere else in Australia. Out 17 MLAs perform all the state functions as well as the functions of local government. Federally, we have just two members of the House of Representatives and two senators.
The only worse representation per head in Australia is the number of senators in NSW and Victoria per head of population, but that is more than made up by their state local and House representation. Given al the whinges and groans about the quality of ACT representation, one might well put a lot of that down to purely numbers. Public disgruntlement often centres around failure to get a response more than the quality of the response – and those failures must often be a question of each MLA having too many people to represent.
The representation ratio has worsened since self-government in 1989. At that time the ACT had a population of 273,320. the latest figure (in March) puts the population at 313,430, a rise of 14.7 per cent. Yet the number of MLAs remains at 17. There was a good argument for having more than 17 MLAs in 1989, but assuming that was the correct number, on a population ratio, we should have about three extra MLAs. Given that a quirk of numbers has reduced federal representation from three to two, there seems a reasonable case for going up by four, so that the three electorates can each have seven members.
The ACT should not get indefinite increases in the size of the Parliament every time population goes up, because there comes a time when economies of scale cut in. For example, one Speaker can deal with 17 or 50 MLAs and a Ministry of five or even four can cope for some time to come. However, that critical mass has not been reached. Far from it. At present, the Governing party, Labor has eight seats. By the time you take out a Speaker and four ministers there are only three back-benchers to do all the committee work. It allows very little room for any MLA not pulling their weight – which is a problem endemic in all Parliaments.
There are some constraints in increasing the size. The 1995 referendum entrenched the Hare-Clark system (which is essential the voting system used in the Senate). It can be overcome with a two-thirds majority of the Assembly, but that would look like politicians over-turning the people’s will. It would be better to stick to those principles. Those principles combined with the fact you need an odd number in the Parliament so majorities are clear cut, suggest that three electorates of seven members apply.
Judging on last month’s election result, there is no guarantee that that would result in more independents or minor party MLAs – in fact, to the contrary.
It might, however, result in a great differential of seats between the winning and losing major party that more reflects the votes they obtained. That would help good governance.