Community Alliance Party

Canberra is different, not so much because it was created artificially, but because it has a divided soul.  On the one hand it is a creature of the federal government, a place of commanding vistas and national monuments, a company town that rises and falls on the tides of the federal government’s spending priorities.  On the other, it is a city much like any other, a place of workplaces, shops and clubs, a city in which people live, work, grow old and die.

In theory, the ACT government should represent the second Canberra. In practice, the Canberra community is likely to be overlooked, as many of its members found when the National Capital Authority and the ACT government announced plans to change the environment and the operations of the Albert Hall.

The Albert Hall is something of a Canberra sacred site. It has a long history of community use, and is an important link with Canberra’s past. Canberrans have made it clear that they want it to continue as a community resource into the future and there are signs that, at last, the authorities are beginning to listen.

In general, though, community concern in Canberra does not translate directly into the political realm. Indeed, there is less variety in the composition of the Assembly now than in the earlier years of self-government. The No-self-government movement was obviously doomed to extinction. But there has been a steady diminution, over the years, in the numbers of minor parties and independents in the Assembly.

It is not just the diversity, but the quality that seems to be wanting. The parliamentarians we have do their best. But it would be fair to say that, with a few exceptions, the level of talent is disappointing.

On the fact of it, this is puzzling, because Canberra has a better-educated, wealthier and more politically savvy population than just about anywhere else in the country. And the ‘prize’ of government is unique – both state-like and local government functions are there for the taking.

Perhaps the reason lies in the existence of the two Canberras. A good proportion of the workforce have their heads in ‘Canberra’ (the source of national policy and practice) rather than Canberra, the actual city in which we live.

It is true that we have 15,000 ACT government public servants, who do live and breathe the life of the city. But the line between public service and political duty is a difficult one. Public servants may run for office, but to do so would certainly ‘brand’ them in an increasingly politicised world. So we have an anomaly – a city-state whose most interested and able citizens are cut off from directly shaping its political life.
 
There is not a lot that can be done about this in the short term. But one reform might, at least, make it easier for community groups to work with their political representatives to shape a better city. That reform would be to increase the number of Assembly members from 17 to 21.

Recent discussion about the issue drew a predictable response. Why have more politicians, people asked, when those we have do such a poor job? When Chief Minister Stanhope made his most recent push for an increase, in 2005, the issue was really a no-brainer for Territories Minister Jim Lloyd. He could play to the gallery by refusing to support the Chief Minister, and at the same time, he could head-off Labor’s proposal for five five-member electorates, which would tend to entrench that party’s domination of the Assembly.

Electoral interests are never far away when political parties contemplate these matters. But the fact is that the ACT is outgrowing the original electoral design for the Territory. The overall growth in the ACT’s population is just one part of the equation. One of the consequences of the uneven distribution of seats between the three Canberra electorates is that it is almost impossible to keep the quota (the number of votes required for each elected member) within the legislated range, and follow the natural, community-based contours of the city.

Woden Valley is a prime example of the difficulty. At the moment, the boundary between the electorates of Brindabella and Molonglo runs through the middle of the Woden Valley suburbs.  Torrens, Pearce and Chifley are on the Brindabella side of the line, while Mawson and Farrer are on the Molonglo side. Woden Town centre, the retailing and commercial hub of the area, lies in the Molonglo electorate. There is a similar problem to the north, where the Gunghalin suburb of Nicholls is part of the Ginninderra electorate, while the rest of Gunghalin lies in Molonglo.

Canberra’s population-growth further complicates the situation. As the population of Molonglo has increased (due to the developments in Kingston and elsewhere), it has created a need to move suburbs out of the electorate, or the quota will move outside the permitted range. So the ACT Electoral Commission (working, as it must, with the present situation of three electorates electing 17 members) has proposed that Farrer should move into Brindabella, and the suburb of Palmerston (in Gungahlin) should become part of Ginninderra.

But this proposal makes the bifurcation of Gungahlin worse, and does nothing to improve the situation for Woden Valley. A better solution would appear to be to create three seven-member electorates, one to the north, one in the centre, and the other to the south. Indeed a 21-member assembly was precisely the figure recommended in 2002 by a majority of the Assembly’s Legal Affairs committee.

The seven-member option also helps the minor parties, an outcome which does not commend it to Labor or to many Liberals, but might just help to reinvigorate a tired local political scene.

Dr Jenny Stewart is Associate Professor of Public Policy at the University of Canberra