Community Alliance Party

However you look at it, ACT self-government has not, so far, been a conspicuous success.

From the start, it was a child of scepticism, born of necessity. Most Canberrans, wise to the ways of politics and politicians, mistrusted the influence interest groups would bring to bear on elected politicians. And they worried about the cost (to themselves) as well.

But the federal government was adamant. We Canberrans would be forced to run our own affairs, and more particularly, we would be forced to pay for the upkeep of the beautiful and convenient city in which we lived.

It should have worked out well. Here was a well-educated and wealthy electorate, with many people possessing considerable skill and experience in public administration. For a city-state, the Westminster system that we were forced to accept was overly-cumbersome and expensive, but at least there was no upper house to bother with, and Ministers and Ministries could surely be adapted to sensible patterns of governance. With proportional representation, there was a good chance that multi-party governments would emerge, with Ministers drawn from the overall pool of talent.

But it was not to be. With the exception of the Alliance government that held power from 1990 until 1991, Canberra has had either single-party minority governments or (since 2004) a majority Labor government. While initially there were a number of ACT-based political parties with members in the Assembly, as time went on, it became apparent that the politics of the city-state would mirror the familiar Labor/Liberal divide.

Indeed, once ACT Labor obtained for itself an electable leader, in Jon Stanhope, the party has become increasingly dominant. As Labor parties do not form coalitions, the prospects for more broadly-based executive government have, correspondingly, receded. Canberra is, in many ways, a natural Labor town: as John Howard is supposed to have put it, Canberra lives like Toorak, but votes like Cessnock.

Labor’s dominance might not have mattered so much had there been a strong, united and effective opposition. But the ACT Liberals, like the hapless Poms of the recent Ashes Tests, has been unable to offer a real contest. While the government has offered plenty of opportunities  – the response to the bushfires, the school closures, the library closure, the public transport cutbacks, the Opposition has not been able to make much headway out of any of them.

With Labor’s dominance, has come an attrition of the smaller parties and independents. The Democrat’s Roslyn Dundas was voted out in the 2004 election. At present, the Greens hard-working Deb Foskey remains the sole representative of her species.

Canberrans have yet to demonstrate that we can generate the kind of political community from which effective Territory government might be expected to flow. The presence of the Commonwealth government seems overwhelming in the minds of many.

The Territory’s public service, despite the presence of many good and dedicated people, struggles to compete with the Commonwealth in terms of recruitment and retention. When the Commonwealth was busily downsizing, it was not too much of a problem. Now that the Commonwealth is recruiting as if there were no tomorrow, and offering quite absurd salaries for the level of responsibility involved, the Territory struggles even more.

For Territory public services have to actually do things: run and staff public hospitals and schools, public transport systems and libraries; provide water and electricity, plan development, build roads. There is plenty of politics in all of this, but a lot of it depends on good technical management and policy analytic skills.

As community-minded people discovered with the sorry story of school closures, the government often seemed to have little idea of what it was doing (or little inclination to explain the basis for its decisions). Officials from the department of education often seemed less well-informed about school population parameters and the implications of proposed changes, than the community groups battling valiantly to save their schools. There is widespread scepticism about the government’s ability adequately to manage the massive restructuring it has inflicted upon public schools and pre-schools.

Unfortunately, public services cannot reform themselves. They depend upon good political leadership. So the question becomes – how can we improve the quality of political leadership in the ACT?  We need people in government who have the experience that is needed to manage the hard and exacting work of policy analysis and implementation, and to encourage and shape an ACT Public Service that is professional, purposeful and proud of itself.

These questions bring us back, once again, to the state of the political parties in the ACT. We do not know how many party members ACT Labor has, nor how many the ACT Liberals have, because such figures are not publicly disclosed. But the numbers are not likely to be great.

ACT Labor is becoming arrogant in government. It clearly does not understand the Territory’s finances very well (does anyone?), and its ability to consult intelligently with the community is poor. It made a much better opposition than it does a government. The Liberals have some members of potential but are constantly at each other’s throats. And it is always hard to know where they stand in relation to the development lobby.

So, what of the future? I think concerned citizens should start thinking about a new political party for the ACT, one that will put Canberra’s interests before political factions, vested interests and outmoded ideas. ‘They’ll never get anyone up’, I hear the hard-heads say. But if ever a town needed open, intelligent, government with an eye to the long-term, and a capacity to develop and lead an effective public service, it is ours. Even one new Assembly member with the right approach might make all the difference.

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