Chief Minister Jon Stanhope acknowledges in this election year that his Government is travelling well.
He is a popular Labor leader, like Queensland Premier Peter Beattie, but there the similarity ends.
He did not suggest with false pretence against all the evidence – as Beattie did – that the election might be lost.
“I believe we will win the election,” he says. “But majority government will be difficult.”
And unlike Beattie and NSW Premier Bob Carr Stanhope says that he will refuse point blank to enter a law-and-order auction this election.
He takes comfort from the Canberra electorate being different from electorates elsewhere in Australia.
“Populist decisions are tempting in an election year,” he says.
In the week when the Opposition announced it would start work on a dam in Naas Valley the next day if it won the election, Stanhope did not even attempt to match it.
He acknowledged the anxiety about water, but said, “It is a difficult and complex question. It is important to be rigorous, prudent and scientific and look at all the options. . . .
“That is the attitude that I have in relation to most things. I will not be spooked. . . .
“I have always respected the way the Canberra community is connected to the political and decision-making processes. . . . I take comfort in the knowledge that people will recognise hard decisions and that the government is presented with a limited range of options.”
He also thinks that the Canberra electorate will respect a principled decision about something – “for instance gay and lesbian adoption”.
“I think it is a significant issue of principle,” he says. “It is not a populist position. Some people who voted for Labor at the last election perhaps will not vote for us this time on the basis of that issue.”
And he thought he would not gain many votes by it, because the people directly affected would most likely be Labor voters.
“But it is the expression of a leader who is prepared to stick to his principles,” he says. “And I like to think that Canberra understands that, and that, at the end of day, they might say they disagree with him but he has stuck to his guns and he has got the courage of his convictions. I think the courage of your convictions his importance in politics. It is is something which is a bit lacking.”
In the interview yesterday, Stanhope stuck his neck out on what he saw as another issue of principle: increasing the size of the Assembly so that the people of Canberra “get the level of attention to issues that they deserve”.
“There is a popular wisdom around that it is not good for a politician or anyone else to support the employment of more politicians,” he says. “But I am a strong advocate for an increased size of the Assembly. I think this is a very big issue for this territory.”
Talking the issue down “is talking yourself down and talking the Assembly down”.
Stanhope does not join the populist anti-politician, anti-Assembly view.
“I am prepared to talk the Assembly up,” he says. “This is a good parliament. The people of Canberra are well served by this parliament. The gestation was crook; nobody wanted it. The first few years were shambolic and it developed a poor reputation. But people here [in the Assembly] have been far too defensive about their role in Canberra and this has dragged this place down as an institution. I’m trying to build it up by being a leader with integrity and honesty.”
He wants a 25-Member Assembly with five five-member seats. He rejects an increase to 21 with three seven-member seats.
The latter would only help the cross-benchers, he said. (Indeed, it is about the only issue on which Greens MLAs Kerrie Tucker has intractably opposed the Government.)
Twenty-five Members would most like deliver two extra Members for both the Government and Opposition, Stanhope argues. This would give the Government the capacity to appoint another one or two ministers and give better capacity to do committee work.
“Seventeen Members and five ministers do not deliver to the people of Canberra the level of government and the level of attention to issues that they deserve,” he said. “Much of the shortcoming of government is a result of the sheer volume of work and breadth of the issues that each minister has to cover.”
Ministerial council meetings were important for the people of Canberra, he said, but the five ministers each have up to 12 equivalent ministries in the larger states. One person could not keep up with the level of detail needed.
Increasing the size of the Assembly “is about delivering good government”.
“I am firmly committed to it,” he said. “It is an issue I will pursue.”
A serious analysis would show it to be cost effective even if the extra members would cost about $2 million a year – “that’s why it is so unpopular”.
He is unashamed at being after majority government.
He thinks that a majority Government (that does not have things foisted upon it from time to time by the Opposition and cross-bench in the Assembly) is fully accountable for all government decisions. But he recognises that the electorate has now matured with the Hare-Clark system and understands how to get the best out of its vote.
“I would like majority government but I think it is quite likely that we will receive a higher first preference and two-party-preferred vote than Beattie [in the recent Queensland election] and not get his enormous majority or not get majority government at all. . . .
“The recent polling was quite gratifying. I think that the ACT Government is reasonably highly regarded by the people of Canberra. There is a feeling in the community that the Government is sound and that the Government is steady and that is the same feedback I get with respect to my performance as Chief Minister and with respect to the performance of each of my ministers. . . .
“The government is in good odour but of course politics is a tricky, treacherous quicksand rhythm business. The mood and perceptions and opinions change very quickly.”
In health and education, he thought the Government had done the hard yards – fixing the nurses dispute and giving $27 million above the normal funding growth for education.
On the Opposition’s assertion that his Government is one of all plans and no action he says, “I guess in Opposition — particularly when you do not have any policies that you have rolled out yourself except about a new dam or police officers stationed in school yards — you have to make those sorts of claims. . . . Shortly after we came into government someone did a count – – it was a touch frightening – – but in Opposition we had managed to rack up something like 650 commitments or promises. Ninety per cent of those we have actually implemented or are in the process of doing so. We will be happy to run on our record of achievement. I am not short on data of this Government’s achievements. . . .
“Canberra is in fine fettle. The town is lovely. I don’t think it has ever looked better . . . As I go about people are essentially happy; they are contented; they love their town; they think it is doing very well. The economy has never been stronger. The budget position is really good. Unemployment is at an all-time low. . . . I can drag out all the economic indicators. Every one of those indicators will tell you how well this town is doing. . . . People are embracing life here. . . .”
He says that critic might complain, “You are not doing anything. You have not made any big decisions. You haven’t changed anything.”
“But when you ask what exactly they would like us to change, people are horrified at the thought. The people of Canberra are in love with Canberra. One of the fears of the people of Canberra is that a rash government will come in and it change things around for the sake of being able to respond to the charge that it is not doing anything.”