Not only is the national capital community aspiring to full independence from the clutches of Federal Parliament, but leading political figures are now advocating or implying further changes which would reshape our democratic institutions. These include an upper house and local councils. Throw in referendums for good measure. Where does it end?

The proposals are emanating from staunch critics of the ACT government, which is not a good start. Senator Zed Seselja and former chief minister Jon Stanhope have no credibility with the government when it comes to being open-minded observers of ACT politics. The idea of a referendum on stage 2 of the light rail system to Woden stems from long-term opponents of light rail, who would use a referendum as a last-ditch attempt to stop its expansion.

Seselja, as part of his opposition to the right of the ACT to legislate for euthanasia in the territory, has implied the ACT community would be more mature and reliable if its democracy had an upper house, not just a 25-member Legislative Assembly. His clear purpose is to cast doubt on the capacity of the present ACT Labor-Green government.

Stanhope, an advocate for territory rights (but apparently not for euthanasia) has floated the idea of creating local governments. His purpose is to introduce a second level of government to provide checks and balances and to occasionally "bang heads" with the territory government. He is worried by long-term one-party government, even though the ACT now has two-party government.

Opponents of light rail argue that territory elections, even when the results are consistently clear, cannot provide a clear mandate for a government to go ahead with a controversial proposal because voters always consider many different issues. As a general principle this is true, but majority Westminster democracy empowers elected governments to act in such circumstances.

These three suggestions are just thought bubbles - with no discussion of costs or practicality and often with a hidden agenda - but let's dignify them with an investigation anyway.

They share the belief in the need for a check on the powers of executive government. As such they all have a long history across the Western world. They are part of the contest between having a strong executive government and one limited by various checks and balances. Each alternative has both its supporters and strong critics. Some people accept the role of government, even so-called "big government", and want governments which govern. Others distrust government and want government not only to be limited but also to be reauthorised by the electorate as frequently as possible.

Parliaments are written into constitutions. Within Australia, five of the eight state and territory parliaments have an upper house. Queensland, which abolished its upper house in the 1920s, the Northern Territory and the ACT are the exceptions. The Commonwealth Parliament has the Senate.

Local government has no constitutional basis, although a proposal for recognition once went to a referendum. The number and form of local councils are decided by state and territory governments. The ACT is the only state or territory without them. The Northern Territory, with a much smaller population but a much larger land mass than the ACT, has 17 local councils.

Generally only constitutional referendums are prescribed and binding on parliaments. But non-binding referendums and their equivalents, like plebiscites and unofficial postal ballots, sometimes do occur on other matters when governments want to test the water.

READ MORE:

The idea with the most legs, despite the Chief Minister's rejection of it, is some form of local government. Not surprisingly it has some support in existing community councils. Many people in local communities would appreciate a greater say in planning decisions and the provision of services at the local level. But it would have to be sold positively as a local voice, and not negatively as anti-central government. There is no obvious appetite in the community for the ACT government to be counterbalanced by a second tier of strong local government.

For the idea to progress it would need a serious white paper which explored options. One might extend to five local councils centred on the town centres. Another could be a CBD-type council, with its leader perhaps dignified by the term "Lord Mayor" as in the case of Brisbane. Alternatively the north-south divide could provide the basis for two larger local councils. This would fit in with the general trend across Australia towards larger and fewer councils.

Upper houses only serve a purpose when they do not duplicate the lower house unnecessarily and when they serve a democratic purpose. The Senate does this to some extent. Too often, state upper houses have been conservative bastions, originally built on privilege and undemocratic electoral systems. That is why there was a push to abolish them. An ACT upper house would be wasteful if it just replicated the political balance in the lower house.

Referendums, unless they are constitutionally necessary, should be rare and carefully targeted. They are also a costly distraction if their only purpose is to second-guess elected governments.

We need a broad and detailed discussion, recognising likely changes to the future shape of the Legislative Assembly, which is planned to increase to 35 members in the intermediate term. The benefits must be commensurable with the costs. Local government, for instance, to be worth its salt must have paid members supported by a professional bureaucracy. We can't have it all in a small territory.