11 May 2009

20 years of the Legislative Assembly

| johnboy
Join the conversation
39

So apparently today marks the 20th year of sittings in the London Circuit Soviet also known as the Legislative Assembly.

Having done the fogey reminiscence to mark the anniversary of the first election let’s instead look forward.

What would you change to improve the governance of our Territory?

Join the conversation

39
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

The constitution of the ACT wasn’t and isn’t decided by the people of Canberra. It was decided by the Commonwealth Parliament. I am not sure where that leaves the legitimacy of government in Canberra.

Statements to the effect that “that’s democracy” suggest a limited understanding of the range of views on the nature of democracy.

There is an elite view of democracy along the lines that the people elect the elites who then make all the decisions until the next election. Clown Killer seems to have this view of democracy. The current ACT Labor Government seems to also like this approach to democracy.

But there are also participatory theories of democracy that run a long the lines that the more participation in decisions by more people the more democratic it is. On these theories, more democracy, meaning more participation, is better.

Also from this perspective, elite decision making is not very democratic.

Interestingly, from their policy statements, both the Greens and the Liberals seem to lean toward participatory approaches to democracy.

It also looked to me like the Canberra electorate voted in that direction in the last election – that many voters wanted a more participatory approach to decision making.

So, when people make claims to the effect that this is what democracy is, it would be good to recognise that they are making that claim from a particular perspective.

Also, if ACT Labor does lean to an elite theory of democracy while the the Greens (and the ACT electorate)lean to a participatory theory of democracy then that could lead to interesting sparks between Labor and the Greens.

I favour a participatory approach to democracy and I would like to see local councils in addition to a larger Assembly. I would like to see more democracy rather than less.

johnboy said :

Parliaments are elected by the people Jake, and constitutions should be voted for by the people.

So if the Parliament and the constitution derives its power from the people, why can it not thus be restrained or directed by the people on a specific issue?

caf said :

Mind you, no-one around today voted for our Constitution. Maybe a Constitution should be relegitimised by a vote of confidence every generation?

You don’t understand caf. When you were born you signed a social contract. It’s a magical document that you automatically agree to despite the fact that you can’t agree to anything else for the next 18 years. You’ve already agreed to it, I’m surprised you didn’t know that.

Mind you, no-one around today voted for our Constitution. Maybe a Constitution should be relegitimised by a vote of confidence every generation?

Parliaments are elected by the people Jake, and constitutions should be voted for by the people.

johnboy said :

caf said :

(Citizen Initiated Plebiscites would get around my objection though – nonbinding, but a declaration of support that would require the Government to have a pretty damn good explanation for not following through).

Agreed, parliaments should only be bound by constitutions.

…not the people?

Worst. Social Contract. Ever!

caf said :

(Citizen Initiated Plebiscites would get around my objection though – nonbinding, but a declaration of support that would require the Government to have a pretty damn good explanation for not following through).

Agreed, parliaments should only be bound by constitutions.

caf said :

The problem I have with the concept is that the questions (because they’re written by the proposal’s proponents) won’t consider the tradeoffs inevitably involved. They’ll say “Should we do XYZ Worthy Thing?”, but won’t ask “… and where should the money come from, how will we deal with these consequences, …”.

A legitimate concern and one that would need to be addressed in the strucure of the system before it could go ahead.

‘Introduce Citizen initiated Referenda’

No, no, no.

Nothing would ever get done..

Strikes me as a good thing.

Clown Killer said :

Jakez, I’m a firm believer in voting and then letting whoever gets in go about the business of being the government. If the electorate don’t rate the Government they can send them on the ‘walk of shame’ at the next election – that’s democracy. In a citizen initiated referendum you get a group of people with a common self interest suggesting that they know better than the rest of the electorate and a bunch of money gets pissed away.

You haven’t backed up your assertion.

To all: Look at your arguments. Basically democracy leads to bad outcomes, thus we must limit democracy but pretend that we aren’t. This is meant to legitimise the Government? It’s nothing but a fraud.

Agorism for the win!

(Citizen Initiated Plebiscites would get around my objection though – nonbinding, but a declaration of support that would require the Government to have a pretty damn good explanation for not following through).

The problem I have with the concept is that the questions (because they’re written by the proposal’s proponents) won’t consider the tradeoffs inevitably involved. They’ll say “Should we do XYZ Worthy Thing?”, but won’t ask “… and where should the money come from, how will we deal with these consequences, …”.

CIR work just fine in numerous places.

Where it works well they require a large number of petition signatures.

I’d suggest 10% of electors. So in Canberra they’d need what 15,000 signatures? Anything that could get that many would be an issue worthy of consideration IMHO.

It then goes on an extra ballot handed out at election time so extra cost is minimal.

And then instead of focus groups or poll samples of thousands we’d actually know what the voting public (remember we remain notionally a democracy) wants done on issues of burning importance.

I realise this is a disturbing idea to much of Canberra though.

Clown Killer11:48 am 12 May 09

Jakez, I’m a firm believer in voting and then letting whoever gets in go about the business of being the government. If the electorate don’t rate the Government they can send them on the ‘walk of shame’ at the next election – that’s democracy. In a citizen initiated referendum you get a group of people with a common self interest suggesting that they know better than the rest of the electorate and a bunch of money gets pissed away.

“…In other news, at today’s referendum the question ‘Would you like to have your cake and eat it too?’ passed with a resounding 84% majority. Commentators described the 16% against as a ‘protest vote'”.

So your problem is a Government being hamstrung from doing something that is contrary to the majority view, by a direct referendum supplying the majority view?

Jesus Christ, you statists don’t even believe in your own product.

Clown Killer: Well you can engineer the situation to limit the cost of the structure. As for a horde of special interest groups, well why not? I don’t see the problem of having a few referenda to vote on at an election. Give me some horror stories from the US.

colourful sydney racing identity11:03 am 12 May 09

‘Introduce Citizen initiated Referenda’

please for the love all that is holy no. I can’t think of anything that would hamstring governments more.

Clown Killer10:52 am 12 May 09

Introduce Citizen initiated Referenda

Jakez, don’t go there. Can you imagine the mayhem that the plethora of self interest groups will cause with that? I can see a dark world where every vaguely unpopular decison governemnt makes gets tested by a referendum. Community engagement is great but pulling the rug out from under an elected executive every time theres a hard call to make is just lunacy.

As for single member electorates, it’s not so much about punishing the ALP for being too popular, but more about the concept that if you have a Party that gets about 40% of first preferenece, gain 100% of the seats, that sort of doesn’t accord with democratic principles.

Now I’m not one to go ooh democracy rah rah, but it sort of helps when selling the tyranny of the majority by having at least be a tyranny of the majority and not a tyranny of the minority.

* Dramatically increase the size of the LA.
* Dramatically reduce representative salaries (ie, $300 a year)
* Keep Hare Clark
* Possibly devolve power to geographic councils (possibly), keeping an ACT wide LA with one Hare Clark electorate, and then further smaller councils. This would be subject to a very stringent cost/benefit analysis despite my extreme favouring of decentralisation of power and federalism.
* Introduce Citizen initiated Referenda
* Campaign to remove Federal Government Veto Power except in areas relating to the Parl Triangle and National Institutions

or

Abolish Government

Either one is fine by me 😉

Sack them all and bring back the NCDC.

canberra bureaucrat9:21 pm 11 May 09

Depends on what you think the problem is.

Is it some subtle structual problem that a bit of careful tweaking will fix? Then better governance will help, though I remain to be convinced that this is the problem.

Are we not getting the right stuff done for the money we have (i.e. poor decision-making)? Then double the salaries of politicians to get better people in power (that’ll be popular!).

Or are we, as a small population, just unable to raise enough dosh to meet our wants? Well then, more government revenue is needed, or reduce our wants.

sexynotsmart7:22 pm 11 May 09

old canberran said :

(The people of this country) cannot and should not expect the residents of Canberra to pay for the upkeep of the nation’s capital.

This logic seems a bit perverse. Federal Government should fund the “capital” bits like the Parliamentary Triangle and the Lodge and Government House, but nothing residential. I don’t want to pay for western Sydney garbage collection, and I don’t think they should pay for ours.

Clown Killer said :

Keep the Hare-Clarke system as it’s great at helping identify the MLAs we detest the least

Preach it, testify! There’s not enough people to justify the Washminster expense or extend to a Queensland model. What we have is next best. So to continue the Aliens quotes:

“Get away from her you bitch!”

Gungahlin Al said :

There is a requirement for odd number of electorates, odd number of MLAs in each, and odd number in total. So 17, 19 (7,7,5), 21, 23 (7,7,9), 25, and so on.

I’m torn between 21 (3×7) and 25 (5×5).

Why does it all have to be odd? If it’s required by statute that can be changed.
To avoid a tied vote the overall number needs to be odd. 3 x 6 + 1 x 7 = 25 or 2 x 8 + 1 x 9 = 25 works for me.
Larger electorates to increase the chance of some minor party representation and a larger assembly to spread out the work load and give major parties the opportunity of selecting decent ministers and shadow ministers. The difference in the quota needed between electorates with a difference of one member is not that great.

On population growth alone the assembly could have 21.25 members if an election was held this year.

Get rid of 4 year terms, when a government is crap you are left with them.

Members should come from the area they live in.
ie Belconnen, woden, Tuggs, city and Gunghalin.

The older suburbs have been let go for new infrastructure in the newer suburbs.

School closures and empty buildings and kids travelling too far from home to go to school. Education and good schools are the insurance for tomorrow, these poor little kiddies will be granting our pensions and looking after us in our old age…..think about it….Superschools what idiot wanted them, not the school community.

The cockup of the Glenloch interchange.

This city has never looked so bad.

Absolutely nothing for the Assembly to be proud of at all. They cost us too much money for the results achieved.

Been living in Canberra since 1963 and have seen a lot of changes.

It’s undemocratic to have our hometown ruled from afar by the representatives hailing from pretty much everywhere-but-here. It’s only right that the entire country gets to decide on the symbolic and practical matters of direct relevance to Canberra’s status as the Capital, but the everyday governance of the Territory is properly the prerogative of the people that live here.

old canberran3:57 pm 11 May 09

Give it back to the Federal Government. It’s their responsibility to govern it as the nation’s capital on behalf of the people of this country.
They cannot and should not expect the residents of Canberra to pay for the upkeep of the nation’s capital. I have to say that after 20 years of self government it’s obvious that it’s not working. The place looks very tired and unkempt particularly in the older suburbs.

Trunking symbols3:26 pm 11 May 09

Interesting to remember that single member electorates were ruled out because Labor would win every seat. In other words Labor was penalised because they were too popular. Thus we got modified D’Hondt then Hare-Clark. Also remember the three No Self Government MPs and the Abolish Self Government MP elected in the first Assembly. One of the No Self Government MPs (Craig Duby) became Urban Services minister in Trevor Kaine’s government and another of the NSG MPs became speaker. I remember talking to Craig Duby before the 1st election in 1989 and he actually told me that they didn’t advocate no self government at all but rather a town council (local government). They really fooled everybody.

I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit.

Hey! We watched that on Saturday night.

I can’t think of a more appropriate quote other than maybe, “We’ll come in low out of the rising sun, and about a mile out, we’ll put on the music.”

Gungahlin Al2:50 pm 11 May 09

I notice John Warhurst put forward the idea (which I have also floated here from time to time) to expand out the ACT to Yass and Bungendore.

The feds gave up the ACT because it was costing too much money. We are now suffering as a result. We need to offer solutions.

I’d expand our borders to take in Quangers, Murrambateman and possibly other nearby areas. Let’s face it, we’re paying for the use of our infrastructure by NSW residents who work here. Also, they can’t be experiencing great governance by having the NSW govt responsible for them. We need extra land in order to streamline interconnectivity with the captial region (eg business, transport, etc) as well as allow for sufficient diversification of the ACT economy.

I’d change the electoral boundaries to allow for Gungahlin to be represented only by people who live there. If we add extra areas to our boundary, I’d have Hall represented by the Murrumbateman region. I think we should then keep multi-member electorates, but increase the size of the assembly slightly but realign things.

screaming banshee2:12 pm 11 May 09

Skidbladnir said :

I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit.
Its the only way to be sure.

Classic!

Why do we need any electorates? An electorate at large seems the way to go to me.

The ballot paper will probably be insane from time to time but that is a small price to pay in my eyes.

Gungahlin Al1:21 pm 11 May 09

Agree with Caf. The current size is unworkable – each MLA is (or should be) chronically overworked, the ministers have far too much in their portfolios. People decry many decisions or lapses in attention. Although stupidity or laziness is sometimes to blame, more often it is entirely understandable and only a few more MLAs will resolve it.

There is a requirement for odd number of electorates, odd number of MLAs in each, and odd number in total. So 17, 19 (7,7,5), 21, 23 (7,7,9), 25, and so on.

I’m torn between 21 (3×7) and 25 (5×5).

7-member electorates are more likely to see minors and independents elected – a Good Thing in my opinion. But the size of electorate is so large that it acts to prevent those same minors and independents from being able to finance and mount a decent campaign – thus it is bordering on undemocratic.

5-member electorates would address the size issue, and as caf said allow better matching of electorates to communities. But the required quota is larger thereby meaning perhaps less of those same minors/independents getting up.

I think I err on the side of better democracy, and therefore favour 5×5. I just fervantly hope the Greens acquit themselves well this term and people are better disposed to look beyond the two old parties, thereby off-setting the quota issue.

But we need to get this issue on the agenda, as neither ALP or Libs appear prepared to broach the size differences.

As to those espousing single member electorates, I’d suggest reading Crispin Hull’s column in today’s CT, where he explains that the last two elections would have seen EVERY seat go to ALP under that scenario. And remember it is a single-house parliament – no checks or balances. Just a virtual dictatorship from term to term.

A small increase in the size of the assembly would be warranted, mainly to allow a corresponding increase in the number of allowed Ministers. This would also let us redraw the electorate boundaries to better align with geographic realities and give an equal number of representatives to each electorate.

Better building planning and regulation would be good. A system of independent building inspectors would be good, too.

Clown Killer11:28 am 11 May 09

Sorry, obviously that opening sentence should read: believe that the Legislative Assembly isn’t broken.

Clown Killer11:27 am 11 May 09

I believe that the Legislative Assembly is broken. It’s the electorate that needs a good seeing to. Ultimately we get the representatives we deserve. Endlessly bitching and moaning about our MLAs, crime, justice, roads, rates, health and education … (list continues ad nausea) is great sport for those too dumb to realise their contribution to the territory is only measured in greenhouse gas emissions.

Changes? Keep the Hare-Clarke system as it’s great at helping identify the MLAs we detest the least and make voting voluntary so that we can live in a true democracy.

Skidbladnir said :

What would you change to improve the governance of our Territory?

I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit.
Its the only way to be sure.

+1

colourful sydney racing identity11:17 am 11 May 09

single member electorates

What would you change to improve the governance of our Territory?

I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit.
Its the only way to be sure.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.