The leader of the ACT Legislative Assembly would have been popularly elected, under one of the models discussed by Federal Cabinet in 1985.

Proposals for the new governing body ranged from a body corporate to a council, with its size varying from nine to 15, and being elected from either single-member or multi-member electorates, to serve full-time or part-time.

Until then, the ACT had been directly administered by the federal Government. Recently the Gillard Government indicated it would allow the assembly to decide whether to increase the number of members. Cabinet papers for 1984 and 1985 released by the National Archives of Australia reveal the changing nature of the proposal that was discussed by the Hawke cabinet at several meetings.

In a 1978 referendum, 63 per cent of Canberra residents rejected self-government but the documents show the Labor Government was determined to push ahead.

In May 1984 Ministers authorised the release of a White Paper on self-government, along with the report from the self-government task force and the report from the Grants Commission on ACT finances.

The task force proposed 15 full-time members of a newly-elected ACT Legislative Assembly, elected from three electorates of five members each, by a proportional representation system.

The submission from then Territories Minister Tom Uren called for a two-stage implementation for self-government, with initial transfers of powers and functions to take effect as early as possible in 1985.

‘‘It is essential to act with decisiveness given the long history and broken promises by previous governments on this issue,’’ it said.

‘‘The ACT Referendum First Campaign will criticise introduction of self-government without a prior referendum. This can be answered by the government’s electoral commitment to self-government, the election of a new ACT Legislative Assembly with a mandate to administer transferred functions and the basic responsibility of a community to govern its own affairs.’’

While the submission called for the ACT Legislative Assembly to have ‘‘power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the ACT’’, the laws could be overridden by the Governor-General.

The Assembly was to be elected for a fixed term of three years with a fixed election date.

The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet wanted a larger assembly than was being proposed and was against fixed terms.

‘‘PM&C favours 21 members as against 15,’’ the department said.

In June 1985, Ministers said the model proposed by then Territories Minister Gordon Scholes needed further work on the forms of expenditure and revenue raising powers to be transferred and additional costs from creation of separate administration.

Mr Scholes’s submission had said an urgent decision was required to allow the election and transfer of new financial arrangements by July 1986.

‘‘Australia’s small island territories have greater control over local affairs than do ACT residents,’’ it said.

‘‘The lack of a positive direction by government is corroding the good management of the ACT.’’

Mr Scholes proposed a nine-Member Legislative Assembly including a popularly-elected Chief Executive Office who would be the presiding officer of the chamber

‘‘The substantial role of this office [would] be that of Chief Executive Member with ‘Lord Mayor of Canberra’ being a ceremonial title,’’ the submission said.

‘‘Four Members would be elected from each of the two existing ACT federal electorates under a proportional representation system and a Chief Executive Officer, who would exercise executive authority on behalf of the Assembly.

‘‘It should be noted that all main political parties in the ACT oppose a small sized Assembly and generally support an Assembly of around 20 or something along the lines of the Northern Territory model.’’

He proposed the ‘‘Assembly be able to vary the number of its members, change the method of election or electoral boundaries, subject to the agreement of the Commonwealth in the first five years’’.

The Attorney-General’s Department was worried the proposal was not a Westminster model, with the legal system to operate under the control of the assembly.

On November 13 Mr Scholes was asked to prepare a further paper ‘‘with an option of municipal type government with other, state type functions relocated and centralised in a single department’’.

On November 18, Cabinet established a sub-committee to test the proposals.

Cabinet was leaning towards establishing a body corporate along traditional Australian local government lines with all functions and powers being exercised formally by the corporation, which would have the power of delegation. The full-time members of the corporation would be elected from nine single-member electorates.

Two days later the sub-committee recommended a council with nine full-time members.

Cabinet again discussed the issue on November 25 where the decision was taken for the sub-committee to reconvene ‘‘with the Prime Minister in attendance’’.

Cabinet decided on December 2 that the ACT council be a body corporate with 13 part-time members elected from single member constituents.

The release of Cabinet papers does not cover subsequent decisions. The first election after self-government was held in March, with 17 MLAs elected, including the Abolish Self-Government Coalition’s Dennis Stevenson.