The Greens were, undoubtedly, the big winners of the last ACT election, held in October 2008. They hold four seats in the 17-seat Legislative Assembly, a record for any Australian parliament.
Whether this means the ACT has a permanently green-leaning electorate is, of course, another question. Most of the votes the Greens picked up came from disaffected ALP voters. The Liberals ran a spirited campaign under new leader Zed Seselja but could not shake off voters' perception of them as erratic and disunited.
For the jubilant Greens, the voters' message was clear: they had had enough of majority government. As kingmakers in the new Assembly, the Greens could, effectively, name their price. They were offered two ministries by the Liberals but were not to be tempted by executive power.
The option they chose, to support Labor in government through an open parliamentary contract, was politically astute. By insisting, through the Parliamentary Agreement, on open and accountable government, they kept faith with voters who wanted change. At the same time, by remaining firmly on the crossbenches, the Greens calculated that they would not be held accountable by the electorate for any shortcomings of the Stanhope Government. In return for their support they secured a number of changes in the way the Assembly works, plus support for a number of policy commitments, including increased investment in housing and mental health services.
After a scheduled review, both the Greens and Labor have announced they are quite pleased with the way the agreement is working. But a great deal has changed since November 2008. With the ACT's revenue projections being rapidly revised downwards, the policy commitments will have to wait for better times. Commitments to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, except insofar as they result from the economic downturn, will also have to wait. The Greens' core constituency will no doubt be disappointed.
What of the Greens' plan to turn the Assembly, as far as its Westminster structures permit, into a much more deliberative chamber? This is a move that will be welcomed by most Canberrans. We know that the ACT runs state-type functions (such as health and education), but with a city rather than a large state or territory to manage, a more collegial, council-style of operation has always seemed preferable to conventional parliamentary proceedings.
The agreement sets out a plan for change for both the House and its committees. Firstly, the Greens want to see less political gamesmanship and a more collaborative ethos in the way the Assembly operates. Second, they see an expanded role for parliamentary committees, with a much stronger emphasis on policy-related work.
So how has it been going? So far, at least, it is difficult to find much improvement in the Assembly's proceedings, which remain as politicised (in the form of personality-based contestation) as ever. For many of the Assembly's members, old habits clearly die hard.
The new committees are just getting underway, and if the Greens retain their energy and commitment, the scrutiny of Bills will be improved, and through appropriate references, the committees will be able to play a much stronger investigatory role than in the past.
Clearly the Greens hope that these new-style committees will enhance the Assembly's ability to shape the political agenda. But Labor, having taken on the responsibilities of executive government, retains the final say. The executive is required to respond within three months to the reports of parliamentary committees, but does not have to act on them.
One big problem of the agreement is that it does nothing to improve the capacity of executive governance. Had the Greens been prepared to grasp the nettle of executive power, we would undoubtedly have seen some much-needed energy and acumen coming into the Cabinet.
As it is, the ACT struggles to sustain a political executive that can formulate and carry through effective policy. Ministers have multiple executive responsibilities and must necessarily rely heavily on their personal staff, and on the leaders of their departments and agencies, to get the job done. But ministerial leadership remains an elusive quality. It seems likely that many issues will continue to fall into the gap between the political and bureaucratic executives, with agencies following the rules as they see them, and ministers (when it suits them) refusing to become involved.
The Greens will, at least, try to ensure that the government consults the community a little more than it did in its previous term. A Community Engagement Unit is to be re-established in the Chief Minister's Department and agencies will be required to take consultation seriously. But again, if the Government does not want to cooperate with this agenda, it does not have to. The extent to which the Greens can push the Government into consulting (for example, in relation to the impact of Budget cuts) is unlikely to be more than marginal.
Despite the smallness of the ACT, there is an odd sense of isolation about the Assembly. Citizens may, of course, engage with the Assembly by contacting their local member. But multi-member electorates greatly complicate the tasks of communication (and representation). If you have a specific grievance, do you contact just one, or all five, or all seven if you happen to live in Molonglo?
The ACT's electoral system is somewhat schizophrenic, in that it puts a premium both on party and on the individual. It is difficult for individuals to get elected without a party ''brand'' to help them, but at the same time individual candidates within the party team are, at least at election time, competing against each other. There is a premium on getting one's name known, but very few ways to do so.
This makes it extremely difficult (as the Community Alliance Party discovered) for new parties and new people to make much headway. The Greens have been around for longer and are in a position to make the most of their electoral good fortune.
But if the Greens are to cement their position in the Assembly, they will have to work out ways of communicating with sections of the community not normally sympathetic to them, including business. The Parliamentary Agreement if it holds has the potential to revolutionise the way the Assembly works, but the real challenge lies in earning and holding the community's trust.
Dr Jenny Stewart is Associate Professor of Public Policy at the University of Canberra.