This week marks the return of parliamentary sittings for ACT legislators. It won't be the inaugural sitting of the expanded, 25-member Legislative Assembly – that took place in December and was largely ceremonial: new parliamentarians were welcomed; committees were established. But this week's sittings are a chance for our representatives to set the tone for the next four years; to show they are willing to ditch politics as usual in favour of a more collaborative approach to governing our city.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Canberrans were never keen on the idea of an ACT parliament. They voted against self-government (in a 1978 referendum) before the Commonwealth eventually imposed it anyway, just under 30 years ago.
Yet it's a great shame there wasn't, and likely still isn't, more enthusiasm among this city's comparatively well-educated voters to embrace local democracy, because our city-state model has so much potential.
For example, we have far fewer political representatives per capita than every other Australian jurisdiction; indeed, the ACT model has been held up internationally as an ideally compact form of government. Our two-in-one structure (combined "state" and municipal government) means we lack the buck-passing that happens often between states and local councils, particularly over controversial planning decisions and the enforcement of environmental regulations.
Another benefit is our voting system. The ACT's Hare-Clark elections create parliaments that represent most voters' preferences far more accurately than systems based on single-member seats (such as most other Australian lower houses). Our electoral system also means majority governments are extremely rare. Labor's Jon Stanhope is the only chief minister to have held an absolute majority (after the 2004 election), and it lasted just one term.
All these factors suggest the ACT, of all Australian jurisdictions, is ripe for a more collegial style of politics; the kind of consensus-based legislature sometimes seen in continental Europe, where coalition governments are common, and even in some Australian municipal councils. Yet the ACT parliament, and the two main parties whose members mostly fill it, have never grasped this opportunity, preferring instead to mimic the polarised, adversarial approach seen elsewhere in Australia.
Let's hope this week ushers in change. We have a coalition government: Labor relies on two Greens members – though, ideally, any members, regardless of their party, would be open to being persuaded by the merits of an argument or a policy.
And we have 12 new members of the Assembly, who each must decide what their legacy will be. How will they approach their work in committee inquiries and their votes on legislation? Will they move rigidly lock step with their party? Or will they collaborate with all members, parties aside, to govern Canberra in a way that helps all of us?
We urge them to start this week.
