Independents provide more choice for jaded electorate but remain an unknown quantity

The Independents for Canberra (IFC) movement has injected a new dynamic into the 2024 ACT election as it appeals to the disenchanted of all major parties and those open to the “It’s time” factor after 23 years of Labor rule.

Independents have always run for the Legislative Assembly but not in such an organised way across the ACT.

Not really a party but running as one, IFC has 20 candidates across all five electorates, including a full list in the major party leaders’ electorate of Kurrajong, and in Murrumbidgee.

It is obviously hoping to maximise the flow of preferences to give it the best shot at getting a couple of MLAs on the Crossbench to pressure whichever parties form government.

IFC adheres to a set of 10 principles but candidates can act independently, including if they make it into the Legislative Assembly.

So there is no overarching party platform or discipline.

It is hard to identify just what IFC stands for, apart from some general ideals about democratic representation and promising to put a fire under government to get things done.

The candidates are a diverse bunch but as you would expect in the ACT, most fall into the socially progressive category. One of their first commitments was to fund the ACT’s welfare groups properly.

Their “leader” Thomas Emerson is from the David Pocock mould, and at the recent Region leaders debate sounded more like a Green than anything, although he might have been aiming to poach their voters.

But there are also small business people who could find common ground with Elizabeth Lee’s Liberals on some matters.

The point being that when it comes to which party IFC MLAs would support to form government the answer is probably “that depends on who it is”. And there is no guarantee their MLAs would stay with the movement or vote together.

Mr Emerson impressed in the Region debate without actually offering much detail. It was more about the vibe.

IFC also wants the Assembly to think more in the long term about policies by making the ACT the first jurisdiction in Australia to introduce a Future Generations Act, modelled on Wales’ Well-being of Future Generations Act, introduced in 2015.

This would require the development of a community-led vision for the Canberra we want for generations to come, as well as establishing an independent Future Generations Commissioner tasked with ensuring government decisions align with that vision.

MLAs would have to prioritise the wellbeing of current and future generations in framing laws.

It’s a lofty aim that is a far cry from roads and rubbish.

Some would argue that with four-year terms in a rapidly changing world, looking at too distant a horizon might be problematic. As it is, Labor is under fire for not rolling out its infrastructure projects quickly enough, particularly the light rail network which is arguably the closest thing to visionary there is for Canberra.

But it’s hard to disagree with the sentiment.

That’s the thing about IFC – it seems to be more sentiment than substance.

Not that there aren’t policies – take a look at the IFC website – but many fall into the aspirational category such as clearing 75 per cent of the elective surgery waitlist within 12 months of being elected.

There are worthy policies, some reflecting what the parties are also offering, and others that deserve serious consideration.

But it becomes a question of what is deliverable, and whether there is consensus across all candidates.

A couple of independent Crossbenchers with the balance of power could shake things up, hold the government to account and bring about some positive change. Or they could make for instability and chaos, and possibly the need for another election if there is a falling out with the government of the day.

IFC and other independents in the field come with ill-defined positions – for example IFC won’t say whether they support light rail or not – and risks.

That is something voters need to consider if they are considering a pox on all parties and opting for an independent, which is something they are perfectly entitled to do.

In this election they might think the risk is worth it.

But it could be a case of careful what you wish for.