10 November 2024

Why the Territory needs more MLAs

| Ian Bushnell
Join the conversation
30
Legislative Assembly building

The Legislative Assembly building in Civic. The 25 MLAs will be stretched to do their jobs properly. Photo: Michelle Kroll.

Chief Minister Andrew Barr wasn’t going anywhere near it, but this election outcome only adds to the argument that the ACT needs a bigger Legislative Assembly.

The thought of more pollies on the payroll is enough to give many people conniptions, but the formation of a Labor minority government and subsequent ministerial allocation shows that the ACT just doesn’t have enough MLAs to share the load.

Out of the 10 Labor members, eight will be ministers with most covering four or five portfolios.

Mr Barr has only two, but we can cut him some slack given he’s the boss. Same for his deputy, Yvette Berry, with three.

However, all of them will have constituents to serve, as well as some pitching in on committees, although Mr Barr said the two new MLAs will be doing a lot of that work.

Where will they find the time to stay in touch with their electorates, take up local concerns and resolve problems?

READ ALSO Big jump in bureaucracy numbers at all government levels

For ministers, the juggle of portfolios means their capacity to be across the detail in each is limited, making them dependent to a certain extent on the advice from directorates.

As Labor discovered last term, that advice can’t always be relied on.

It’s only been eight years since the size of the Assembly was increased to 25 members, but in that time the city has grown enormously in population, size and complexity.

That growth is set to continue, with Molonglo to be filled out, including a new town centre, along with the new suburbs in Gungahlin, not to mention the infill.

That means MLAs’ jobs are going to become even harder if they are to be done properly.

The Opposition has only nine members, who will have to cover their opponents, while on the crossbench, the Greens, with just four, will be endeavouring to do the same. Those sorts of numbers show how tough it is to hold any government to account.

Part of the challenge is the hybrid nature of the Territory government, which has to administer municipal services as well as the bigger state-like responsibilities of health and education, and provide big-ticket infrastructure items such as hospitals and light rail.

Canberra is a city-state that also has a significant role as the national capital.

The Assembly can battle on for another term or even two, but eventually, the burden will become too much and be a deterrent to attracting quality members.

How many MLAs would be optimum for the ACT? Seven-member electorates would furnish 35, as in Tasmania, which also uses the Hare-Clark system and is comparable in population.

Maybe another electorate could be carved out of Murrumbidgee based on the Molonglo Valley, with the most populous electorate given another MLA to provide the necessary odd number. Or there could be seven five-member electorates.

Whatever the formula, this question should be addressed sooner rather than later.

READ ALSO Barr cedes Treasury to Steel as new cabinet roles point to public service shake-up and budget discipline

Mr Barr is adamant that won’t be in this term.

“There are no plans to increase the size of the Assembly, but at some point in the future, perhaps when Canberra’s population has well exceeded half a million people, there may well be a debate about whether more Assembly members are required, but I just need to be clear, there will be no moves to increase the size of the Assembly in this parliamentary term,” he said.

But it would be better to be prepared and ready to make the transition than having to wait longer when the strain is obvious.

Join the conversation

30
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest
Julie Lindner2:53 pm 11 Nov 24

This is the Capital City of Australia and it is being run into the ground by a bunch of so-called novice politicians. It was in a much better state in every conceivable way when we had a very efficient Department of Interior looking after the Capital City. The Commonwealth Government should hang its head in shame for undemocratically forcing self-Government on Australia’s capital City. The NCA is also totally inept!

Surely the better option would be the repeal of the Self-Government Act, returning state functions to NSW and creating a couple of municipalities to ensure the grass is cut.

Yes. The population and usable land area of the ACT can’t afford to sustain a government where a city council would do the job.

No, no, no… the last thing we need is more left-wing politicians inflicting the ACT with their woke ideology. We need smaller governments not bigger ones. Get governments out of our lives we don’t need more laws and regulations governing every little aspect of our lives.

Almost like you didn’t read the article before your rant.

Whether we need more politicians is one question. But the suggestion is to also increase the size of each electorate – which means it will actually be easier for a wider range of voices to make the assembly – because the quota needed will be reduced. And its fairly likely those voices would sit on the cross bench, or dare I say it be from a more conservative side of politics.

The last thing we need is more bureaucrats getting paid to.do not much. There’s too.many of them now. You must be having a lazy day Bushnell if you come up with garbage like this. We didn’t want self government on the first place but it was imposed on us. Be much easier and more cost effective if we were simply a part of Queanbeyan Palerang Council.

Lol cost effective or easy aren’t two words very often associated with the basked case that is QPRC.

As opposed to the debacle we’re putting up with now. Rates and taxes have gone through the roof. Athllon drive has a new sign saying they’re duplicating it but that’s only because the old one had faded after 10 odd years. Credit rating has reduced and now Steele is Treasurer. Yeah that’ll get us back.in the black…not. And Bushnell is suggesting we spend more on MLAs. Get real

Heywood Smith9:38 am 11 Nov 24

Looking at the current cohort in the ACT LA, last thing we need is more of these morons!

As I said before the last increase (to paraphrase): “I would support the increase if I could be confident it would result in better management of the bureaucracy. I am, however, concerned that it will just result in more snouts in the trough.”

The last increase has been such a resounding failure in that regard that again I can’t support an increase.

I’ve been thinking along these lines lately. The federal parliament has more than 200 members of whom 20 are in cabinet or around 10%. In the ACT Assembly we have 8 of 25 in cabinet or 32%. Last term it was 36%. We simply don’t have the depth of talent required to have enough competent ministers in a Westminster style government. Maybe an increase to 35 MLA’s would bring a couple of extra people with the capability of being decent ministers into the Assembly for each of the major parties.

The other point is that the bigger the cross-bench, the weaker our Assembly is likely to be in terms of managing the directorates. Rattenbury has a lot of experience as a minister and if given the right type of portfolio may be somewhat effective. Emerson may well prove to be more capable than Labor MLA’s like Pettersson and Orr who I suspect were previously left on the backbench for a reason. Superficially, a cross-bench holding a government to account sounds good, but if it comes at the expense of halfway decent management of the directorates will it actually provide better outcomes for Canberra?

GrumpyGrandpa9:19 am 11 Nov 24

Maybe the answer is not so much about whether to increase the number of MLA, to manage our hybrid nature of government; State and Municipal responsibilities, but the whole nature of this arrangement?

I guess the other questions are do the MLAs sit for enough days per year and how did it ever work when there were 17 MLAs?

Of course, the issue Mr Bushnell is talking about is the number of Ministries per government MLA. Had the Greens agreed to form an alliance, there would have been greater numbers to allocate portfolios to. Had the electorate voted differently- ie 2 less Independents or no Greens at all, then the numbers may have been very different. To suggest we need more MLAs is a bit silly. If at the next election, there was a clear majority, would we then reduce the number of MLAs?

Just maybe, there would be some advantage in creating a 2nd tier of government? Let the MLAs deal with the “State” responsibilities and the Municipal responsibilities be removed from the Assembly?

I think it would be reasonable to have more MLAs but only if they increase the number of members per electorate to get better overall representation of what voters want.

If they simply increase electorates to benefit the major parties (again), then it doesn’t really change anything except providing more feather for their own nests.

GrumpyGrandpa9:58 am 11 Nov 24

G’day chewy14,
I’ve often wondered about the advantages and disadvantages of our style of government with multiple MLAs pee electorate, as opposed to the more traditional style of single member electorates and an upper house.
Would we get better representation by increasing the number of MLAs per electorate? I’m not sure.
During the election campaign, I had a chat to a re-elected MLA and came away with the view that there are some MLAs who are passengers in the Assembly. Some are out and about and not so much.
If people needed to contact an MLA, my guess is they’d contract the person they favoured or thought would best represent them and lower profile MLAs might have an easier run.

Hi Grumpy,
if we had two levels of government it would be easier to have local single member electorates and then a second “house of review” which could be more representative overall.

However, with our current system, if we went to single member electorates, it would almost guarantee the only representatives were of the major parties. Considering both the ALP and Libs only got around a third of the total vote each in the last election, this would leave a large proportion of the electorate unrepresented.

Larger member electorates lower the bar for smaller parties and independents to get elected. Which is why the ALP and Libs try to minimise them. Which is exactly how we got the current 5×5 LA, because it guarantees the major parties to be dominant.

Hi Grumpy, I think you’ll find in any parliament that those people who are actually capable enough to take on leadership positions like ministries are in the minority, and therefore there’s always going to be a fair percentage of passengers. That’s because in a democracy it’s often the most charming and effective communicators who get elected. They’re not necessarily those who have the brainpower and drive to excel in the highest positions. There’s two other factors at play as well. These days there’s an increasing number of people voting for diversity, ie gender or ethnicity, rather than looking for the most capable candidates; and the membership of political parties is at a low as a percentage of the population, meaning the talent pool for party pre-selection is shrinking.

So, you are right in that an increase in the number of MLA’s would likely see an increase in the number of passengers, but it would hopefully also get some of the more capable ones into the Assembly as well. Effective management of government directorates could create a combination of better outcomes and less waste that would dwarf the costs of a larger Assembly.

I think single member electorates in Canberra are frankly a waste of time at local level. For instance – what is fundamentally between say Lyneham and O’Connor vs Braddon and Ainslie (they are just examples – but you should get the drift). Larger electorates with multiple representatives I think makes sense in a city state like ours, where fundamentally the geographical size of the place means there actually isn’t going to be particularly big differences at the sub “region” level (for want of a better term”, or what would be fairly small clusters of suburbs.

We need less if anything

Your comparison with Tasmania is incomplete. In addition to their lower house of 35 seats, they have an upper house with 15 seats. They also have 29 local councils with 9 seats each, for a grand total of 311 state and local representatives. That equates to one representative per 1836 residents. With 25 MLAs the ACT has one representative per 19000 residents.

One thing to keep in mind is the vast majority of Tasmanian Councillors are part time. For each council there’s probably only 2-3 FTE members. For a fairer comparison, I’d say one Tasmanian FTE representative for every 7-8000 residents. If the ACT were to expand the Assembly to say 35 members at the 2028 or 2032 elections, that would be about one for every 14,000. When the Assembly was first formed with 17 members, we had roughly one per 16,000.

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.