Canberra’s politicians: Bigger government at all costs

Having lived in numerous locations in Sydney and the NSW Central Coast I stand by my post at #23. And I assure you I am not the only one – it is a common topic at my workplace. I wouldn’t mind paying if it looked as if the government was getting basic municipal services right. But here, we pay, and still don’t get (unless you bug ’em – and then only sometimes. I highly recommend the NeatStreets app BTW).

miz said :

JC, I don’t think we have ended up with the ‘same level’ as everyone else, I think we get far worse value for money than everyone else. This is partly because the structure of our self-government itself is more costly, but also because the ACT Government does not prioritise municipal services but prefers to spend money on ‘big things’ (nice as they may be) like Arboretums, public art and vastly expensive but completely irrelevant, unconstitutional court cases to ‘send a message about gay marriage.’
The poor and poorly-run municipal services are what Canberrans see and have to deal with every day. Potholes, unman grass, graffiti EVERYWHERE YOU GO. People only compare our present level of these services to pre-self-government because the difference is so darn stark.

I’m not sure your observations actually mean that we are getting poor value for money. Go ask people that have a local council and all the red tape they create because to make up funding they need to raise revenue from charging more for carparking, charging more for rates and all sorts of fees and licenses to just go about your daily business. Councils even require things like permits to have a birthday party in a park!

Canberrans are very bad at realising that things here are very good. We complain about anything. Our government is not perfect and they need to be held to account, but I don’t see any more wastage by the ACT government vs the federal government the state governments or councils. Gold Coast council had no issues building themselves some light rail and there are people there on both sides of the fence as there are here.

miz said :

JC, I don’t think we have ended up with the ‘same level’ as everyone else, I think we get far worse value for money than everyone else. This is partly because the structure of our self-government itself is more costly, but also because the ACT Government does not prioritise municipal services but prefers to spend money on ‘big things’ (nice as they may be) like Arboretums, public art and vastly expensive but completely irrelevant, unconstitutional court cases to ‘send a message about gay marriage.’
The poor and poorly-run municipal services are what Canberrans see and have to deal with every day. Potholes, unman grass, graffiti EVERYWHERE YOU GO. People only compare our present level of these services to pre-self-government because the difference is so darn stark.

Sure Canberra costs more? Go to NSW and they have councils and the state government, which is formed of two houses, we just have one government.

As for munciple services, I would suggest you have been everywhere around Canberra and comparing to the good old days, but doubt you have been out and seen the rest of the country, if you had of been you would see other areas face the exact same issues in this regards as the ACT. Of course with much higher council rates compared to the rates in the ACT.

‘Unmown’

JC, I don’t think we have ended up with the ‘same level’ as everyone else, I think we get far worse value for money than everyone else. This is partly because the structure of our self-government itself is more costly, but also because the ACT Government does not prioritise municipal services but prefers to spend money on ‘big things’ (nice as they may be) like Arboretums, public art and vastly expensive but completely irrelevant, unconstitutional court cases to ‘send a message about gay marriage.’
The poor and poorly-run municipal services are what Canberrans see and have to deal with every day. Potholes, unman grass, graffiti EVERYWHERE YOU GO. People only compare our present level of these services to pre-self-government because the difference is so darn stark.

farnarkler said :

JC my point was that everything in Canberra worked in 1987 so I don’t believe we NEED a government. Why not have the ACT governed in the same way Washington DC is?

John, why wouldn’t a country want to give it’s capital the best of everything. Look at Brasilia and Ankara. You’ve got the diplomatic corps in both and both countries don’t want the dipos living and working in a crappy city.

I agree Canberra worked, but it worked because money was easy to come by, money that the rest of Australia put in to provide us with the best of everthing.

Now whilst of course being a purpose built capital with little industry outside of government and support of government workers the country does need to chip in more, the way it was before was without doubt way over the top.

Maybe it would have been better if Self Government was more council like rather than state like, but fact is whilst the good old days, prior to 1989 were good for us (I’ve called myself an ACT resident for 37 of my 42 years) it wasn’t good for the country.

I sigh when I see people complaining about the changes over the years, roads, costs and services for example, but those changes have seen us go down to the same level as everyone else, certainly not too many cases where we have it worse than most states. Yeah it is sad but necessary.

And could you well imagine what would have happened to the ACT if we were still Federally governed with the current Federal government?

As for comparisions to Washington DC, must admit never cared too much about the US, so had no idea, so read up, on WIKI of course. Looking at it, it would seem as if our self government is not too different to DC.

Only difference is change our Chief Minister to a Mayor. Other than that it seems they elect members from electorates (wards as they call them). Even their ability to set laws seems ACT like, with the Feds having more influence than states.

One thing I did know before, and certainly wouldn’t want here is not having a voting representative in the house of reps and no Senate member. Imagine being part of a country and not having someone to represent your views or to attempt to protect your intrests.

No thanks.

PS. Have you ever been to Ankara? I have, and be buggered if it had the best of everything. Looked a lot like a run down dump!

The main problem with the increase in members is that they’ve gone for a 5×5 option which conveniently, and I’m sure completely accidentally, will benefit both major parties over any potential new smaller party.

JC said :

Steven, think you are confusing the Senate with the House of Reps. In one breath you are talking about the Senate then say it is stuffed because of the two party preferred system.

The Senate of course uses proportional representation, which has nothing what so ever to do with two party preferred and that is why we often get a Senate that is in the hands of independents and minor parties. So debunks your theory.

And whilst I do agree it seems unfair that other states have more seats than the ACT you do need to remember that the Senate is there to protect the interests of the state hence every state has the same number of seats. Territories only two each of course.

Also what isn’t good is how in Tasmania they have a guaranteed minimum number of House of Reps members unlike elsewhere where it is purley head count, with each electorate attempting to be about the same size population wise. Not so in Tas. This house should have seats that are evenly spread, country wide with no special treatment for Tasmania.

Also whilst I am at it, there is no such thing as a two party preferred system. When we vote we vote for who want to be elected, we then give our preferences. The fact that preferences fall the party way thus maybe giving this impression, it is not because of some system. It is simply because most people follow how to vote cards thus giving preferences the ways parties want, rather than thinking for themselves, or in some cases they are smart enough to make their own mind and vote how they see fit. Either way it is not a system.

Thank you, JC. Yours is the only post on this topic with a factual basis. People (not yourself) too often forget the purpose of the Senate and fail to see how it fulfils that purpose. They think it should either be abolished, or act as a second House of Reps. Both ideas being as short-sighted and ill-informed as each other.

JC my point was that everything in Canberra worked in 1987 so I don’t believe we NEED a government. Why not have the ACT governed in the same way Washington DC is?

John, why wouldn’t a country want to give it’s capital the best of everything. Look at Brasilia and Ankara. You’ve got the diplomatic corps in both and both countries don’t want the dipos living and working in a crappy city.

JC said :

Steven, think you are confusing the Senate with the House of Reps. In one breath you are talking about the Senate then say it is stuffed because of the two party preferred system.

The Senate of course uses proportional representation, which has nothing what so ever to do with two party preferred and that is why we often get a Senate that is in the hands of independents and minor parties. So debunks your theory.

And whilst I do agree it seems unfair that other states have more seats than the ACT you do need to remember that the Senate is there to protect the interests of the state hence every state has the same number of seats. Territories only two each of course.

Also what isn’t good is how in Tasmania they have a guaranteed minimum number of House of Reps members unlike elsewhere where it is purley head count, with each electorate attempting to be about the same size population wise. Not so in Tas. This house should have seats that are evenly spread, country wide with no special treatment for Tasmania.

Also whilst I am at it, there is no such thing as a two party preferred system. When we vote we vote for who want to be elected, we then give our preferences. The fact that preferences fall the party way thus maybe giving this impression, it is not because of some system. It is simply because most people follow how to vote cards thus giving preferences the ways parties want, rather than thinking for themselves, or in some cases they are smart enough to make their own mind and vote how they see fit. Either way it is not a system.

I’ll have to take your word for it that you have debunked my theory because I certainly don’t understand how what you’ve said relates to anything that I’ve said.

I’m simply stating that our federal and territorial polities are two-party in nature – and systematically so. I’m not really theorising, I’m just genuinely asking what people in the ACT think about their political representation more broadly.

farnarkler said :

John, you talk about people like me having a go at the size of the legislative assembly and what the members actually do, however, I remember Canberra pre 1988 and things were doing just fine. ACTION got us to and from the interchanges and our bins were emptied on a regular basis. Going back a further ten years and 63.75% of Canberrans did not want self government. As for what my mla does, I wouldn’t have a clue who he or she is. I don’t receive any communication from them and only hear of the ones who make the headlines.

Oh you mean when the feds poured heaps and heaps of money into the town? For sure things were so much better, but looking at the big picture why should the rest of the country pay for the ACT to have the best of everything which is what we more or less had.

Who would want self government in this case?

But have a question you make some snide remark about bins being emptied on a regular basis way back when, silly me I thought that was still the case now. I put my bin out and every week it gets emptied and every 2nd week the recycling bin gets emptied. Never had an issue.So what’s your problem on this issue?

Steven, think you are confusing the Senate with the House of Reps. In one breath you are talking about the Senate then say it is stuffed because of the two party preferred system.

The Senate of course uses proportional representation, which has nothing what so ever to do with two party preferred and that is why we often get a Senate that is in the hands of independents and minor parties. So debunks your theory.

And whilst I do agree it seems unfair that other states have more seats than the ACT you do need to remember that the Senate is there to protect the interests of the state hence every state has the same number of seats. Territories only two each of course.

Also what isn’t good is how in Tasmania they have a guaranteed minimum number of House of Reps members unlike elsewhere where it is purley head count, with each electorate attempting to be about the same size population wise. Not so in Tas. This house should have seats that are evenly spread, country wide with no special treatment for Tasmania.

Also whilst I am at it, there is no such thing as a two party preferred system. When we vote we vote for who want to be elected, we then give our preferences. The fact that preferences fall the party way thus maybe giving this impression, it is not because of some system. It is simply because most people follow how to vote cards thus giving preferences the ways parties want, rather than thinking for themselves, or in some cases they are smart enough to make their own mind and vote how they see fit. Either way it is not a system.

farnarkler said :

John, you talk about people like me having a go at the size of the legislative assembly and what the members actually do, however, I remember Canberra pre 1988 and things were doing just fine. ACTION got us to and from the interchanges and our bins were emptied on a regular basis. Going back a further ten years and 63.75% of Canberrans did not want self government. As for what my mla does, I wouldn’t have a clue who he or she is. I don’t receive any communication from them and only hear of the ones who make the headlines.

I too remember those days when we had a toothless House of Assembly and an MP who couldn’t vote in the House of Reps. I remember the campaign Taxation without Representation. I remember being ruled from Parliament House by a person I could not approach, whose anti-Canberra utterances were embarrassing. I remember the deteriorating roads in Belco in the 1970s.

I also remember the ACT receiving no financial consideration for ageing assets like roads and buildings upon copping self government.

I voted against self government and now believe my position was wrong. If residents here don’t like government decisions they can and have voted them out. You can’t do that with a minister form another state in a parliament where we don’t get one vote one value.

Steven Bailey said :

Thanks guys – they’re all really insightful comments. I must say that I am happy to live in a jurisdiction that only has two tiers of government. Imagine the waste if we had a third!! I do however think that the ACT would be better served with more federal senators. That a population of 500,000 in Tasmania attracts the representation of 12 senators and a population of around 380,000 in the ACT of attracts the representation of 2 is grossly unfair – especially in a two-party parliamentary system. It means that the people of the ACT have virtually no say on federal issues, and that the role of an ACT senator is diminished by the one-for-me-one-for-you attitude of the major parties. Thoughts?

Agree that we are under represented in the Senate. NT was offered statehood and rejected it on the basis they still wouldn’t get a full 12 senators. I don’t believe we deserve say 12 senators, but i’d like to see the senate go to a system of 6 senators per state or territory and then the extra senators get distributed based on population.

Another idea I had was for the senate to operate like a referendum. Each states senators would vote on a policy. If say NSW voted 8 to 4 then that would be a vote in favour of the policy. Get 5 of the 8 state/territory to vote in favor and the legislation is passed by the senate.

John, you talk about people like me having a go at the size of the legislative assembly and what the members actually do, however, I remember Canberra pre 1988 and things were doing just fine. ACTION got us to and from the interchanges and our bins were emptied on a regular basis. Going back a further ten years and 63.75% of Canberrans did not want self government. As for what my mla does, I wouldn’t have a clue who he or she is. I don’t receive any communication from them and only hear of the ones who make the headlines.

miz said :

It’s hard to see how more MLAs will make any difference, because the problem is the flawed structure of our self-government. Sure, more MLAs may help the existing MLAs share their workload in the short term, but those heavy workloads are a contrivance of running a Westminster system with ‘Departments’ instead of an economical council-like structure (with an add-on State-level directorate to cover those elements). In local Councils, all Councillors are involved in governing (there are no Opposition bums). Yet most Councillors, remarkably, are part time.
The ‘let’s have more MLAs’ solution is like trying to fix a house’s poor foundations by adding more storeys – the cracks will only get worse.

It’s funny how other local governments seems to manage to keep grass mowed, repair roads without covering them in car-damaging gravel, manage road closures without dramas, collect hard rubbish and green waste, and clean off public graffiti as a matter of course, and for a lot less than the ACT Government costs us.

And ain’t our town looking scruffy at the moment.

Indeed it is (looking scruffy) – not much to show for those rapidly rising rates.

it’s the biggest jobs for the boys legally approved scam in history.

Who wants a pay rise and give their mate a government tax payer funded job with an unbelievably good superannuation scheme .

Aye!!! .. I think the Aye’s have it.

more politicians, more red tape, more new laws, more new taxes .
Do they really think the community want this.

John Hargreaves said :

The only thing I agree with is the need for more senators to show parity with other jurisdictions, but would far prefer to abolish the senate altogether.

On the question of the number of MLAs, I refer rioters to my item on the disparity of representation with other jurisdictions and the actual numbers per elected rep in Tasmania. This disparity is absurd when you consider that we have a stronger economy, and a right to representation just like the rest. That our elected reps have 13,500 or so punters to look after is just wrong, if the other eight jurisdictions are the norm.

On top of that I remind Steven that Tasmania doesn’t have a three tiered governance, it has a five tiered governance. It has senators and members of the reps, it has an upper and a lower house and it has councils. We have two. The ACT is the only jurisdiction to have only two.

The only alternatives are to have the ACT governed by NSW and that would be an unmitigated disaster, or governed by a dictator like minister in the federal government. Remember Hodgeman? The Mouth from the South? This was his nickname. Or do you remember Ralph Hunt from Queensland?

People here should stop whingeing about the size of the Assembly and start talking about the quality in it. If people are unhappy with that quality then change the people in it. Have some courage and stand if you think you are of better quality. This comment is directed at others, not Steven, cos I know he intends to be a starter.

I am also irritated by the uninformed bagging of MLAs and their workload by people who have not the slightest idea of what that workload is and in all probability have never had a casual conversation with an MLA in their lives.

Care to comment on the Joyce Burch pokies issue John? Much more current and pertinent.

The only thing I agree with is the need for more senators to show parity with other jurisdictions, but would far prefer to abolish the senate altogether.

On the question of the number of MLAs, I refer rioters to my item on the disparity of representation with other jurisdictions and the actual numbers per elected rep in Tasmania. This disparity is absurd when you consider that we have a stronger economy, and a right to representation just like the rest. That our elected reps have 13,500 or so punters to look after is just wrong, if the other eight jurisdictions are the norm.

On top of that I remind Steven that Tasmania doesn’t have a three tiered governance, it has a five tiered governance. It has senators and members of the reps, it has an upper and a lower house and it has councils. We have two. The ACT is the only jurisdiction to have only two.

The only alternatives are to have the ACT governed by NSW and that would be an unmitigated disaster, or governed by a dictator like minister in the federal government. Remember Hodgeman? The Mouth from the South? This was his nickname. Or do you remember Ralph Hunt from Queensland?

People here should stop whingeing about the size of the Assembly and start talking about the quality in it. If people are unhappy with that quality then change the people in it. Have some courage and stand if you think you are of better quality. This comment is directed at others, not Steven, cos I know he intends to be a starter.

I am also irritated by the uninformed bagging of MLAs and their workload by people who have not the slightest idea of what that workload is and in all probability have never had a casual conversation with an MLA in their lives.

Thanks guys – they’re all really insightful comments. I must say that I am happy to live in a jurisdiction that only has two tiers of government. Imagine the waste if we had a third!! I do however think that the ACT would be better served with more federal senators. That a population of 500,000 in Tasmania attracts the representation of 12 senators and a population of around 380,000 in the ACT of attracts the representation of 2 is grossly unfair – especially in a two-party parliamentary system. It means that the people of the ACT have virtually no say on federal issues, and that the role of an ACT senator is diminished by the one-for-me-one-for-you attitude of the major parties. Thoughts?

farnarkler said :

I really hope the additional 8 mlas are from obscure and bizarre parties, just to show how absurd the ACT government is. Bring back the Party party party party and the Sun ripened warm tomato party.Only 100 members and a constitution needed.

Unfortunately not. we’ll get at least 10 Labor, most likely 10 Liberals and then 5 to be spread around everyone. Unless people realise they can vote for minor parties and get rid of the idea that their vote will just go to Labor or Liberal anyway. If a large proportion of voters do not vote for the major parties the votes most likely won’t get that far in the preferences.

farnarkler said :

I really hope the additional 8 mlas are from obscure and bizarre parties, just to show how absurd the ACT government is. Bring back the Party party party party and the Sun ripened warm tomato party.Only 100 members and a constitution needed.

Let’s have a Riotact Party!

I really hope the additional 8 mlas are from obscure and bizarre parties, just to show how absurd the ACT government is. Bring back the Party party party party and the Sun ripened warm tomato party.Only 100 members and a constitution needed.

It’s hard to see how more MLAs will make any difference, because the problem is the flawed structure of our self-government. Sure, more MLAs may help the existing MLAs share their workload in the short term, but those heavy workloads are a contrivance of running a Westminster system with ‘Departments’ instead of an economical council-like structure (with an add-on State-level directorate to cover those elements). In local Councils, all Councillors are involved in governing (there are no Opposition bums). Yet most Councillors, remarkably, are part time.
The ‘let’s have more MLAs’ solution is like trying to fix a house’s poor foundations by adding more storeys – the cracks will only get worse.

It’s funny how other local governments seems to manage to keep grass mowed, repair roads without covering them in car-damaging gravel, manage road closures without dramas, collect hard rubbish and green waste, and clean off public graffiti as a matter of course, and for a lot less than the ACT Government costs us.

And ain’t our town looking scruffy at the moment.

If the extra expenditure produced markedly greater accountabilty to the public, and broader and better informed debate about the priorities in the ACT’s multi-billion dollar annual budget, it may well be worthwhile – but that is unlikely. Far more likely is that it will be more of the same – more Ministers and government MLAs mouthing glib platitudes and pretending everything is just fine (nothing to see here…), and more non-government MLAs waving their arms about in frustration and, sometimes, impotent rage.

The money would be better spent on increased audit resources and/or an ICAC style outfit, or on reverting to a three yearly election cycle (snowflake’s chance in hell, I know) – which would reduce the tendency to airy arrogance which comes from controlling a unicameral legislature for four years.

As to “…My second question is why the hell are the Canberra Liberals supporting a bigger government?…” – this, after all, is the national company town and theme park for Australian democracy and bureaucracy – as the old saying goes, “when in Rome…”.

rommeldog56 said :

Well said Steven.

If your facts and figures re salary increases are correct, all ACT Ratepayers should view these issues with considerable concern.

True, unlike Light Rail and Tripling of Annual Rates, I can not recall the possible expansion of the Legislative Assembly being raised by Liberal or Labor as an issue at the last ACT election ?

In any event, with a jurisdiction and revenue raising base as small as Canberra is (and apart some some growth in population, I can not see that keeping up with all the expenditures that the ACT Gov’t is rolling out), one would have to wonder what all these expenditure increases in aggregate will mean to Annual Rates and other ACT Gov’t fees/charges/levies in a few years.

Is it any wonder the previous ACT Chief Minister openly supported an increase in the GST !

And anyone who thinks an increased number of labor/Liberal/Greens MLAs will mean better representation – think again. It will just mean easier access to the party political spin.

IMHO, Labor/Liberal/Greens should be condemned for supporting and progressing these changes. I just live in hope that ACT Voters/Ratepayers are not too apathetic to see what is happening here.

Agree with that totally.
The ACT Legislative Assembly has become a giant sheltered workshop.
The Canberra Liberals have convinced themselves that they will never win another election so they are settling in for the long haul and a comfortable pension in “Pleasantville”.
The nexus between the ALP and trade unions will ensure Labor continues to win elections and the expansion of the assembly was a deal between the main parties to make it very difficult for the minor parties to win any seats.
It is all downhill from now on. We will need a Euro-type bailout soon.

Well said Steven. If your facts and figures re salary increases are correct, all ACT Ratepayers should view these issues with considerable concern.

True, unlike Light Rail and Tripling of Annual Rates, I can not recall the possible expansion of the Legislative Assembly being raised by Liberal or Labor as an issue at the last ACT election ?

In any event, with a jurisdiction and revenue raising base as small as Canberra is (and apart some some growth in population, I can not see that keeping up with all the expenditures that the ACT Gov’t is rolling out), one would have to wonder what all these expenditure increases in aggregate will mean to Annual Rates and other ACT Gov’t fees/charges/levies in a few years.

Is it any wonder the previous ACT Chief Minister openly supported an increase in the GST !

And anyone who thinks an increased number of labor/Liberal/Greens MLAs will mean better representation – think again. It will just mean easier access to the party political spin.

IMHO, Labor/Liberal/Greens should be condemned for supporting and progressing these changes. I just live in hope that ACT Voters/Ratepayers are not too apathetic to see what is happening here.