“Minister Chris Steel, who had signed the agreement with the horse-racing industry, attacked the Greens as pulling a ‘political stunt’. Hardly the stuff of a coalition ‘built on trust and mutual respect’,” writes political columnist MICHAEL MOORE.

IS the Labor-Greens coalition and their “Parliamentary and Governing Agreement” getting shaky? Or is there just early posturing with little over a year to go to the next October election. 

According to the agreement, the coalition has been “built on trust, mutual respect and our many shared values and goals”.

However, actions speak louder than words. For “stable government” the parties have agreed to “guarantee support for the passage of Appropriation Bills” as the legislative support for the government’s budget. Unless you are Greens backbencher Jo Clay where stable government and the agreement come in last. 

Ms Clay objects to the $41 million horse racing industry government subsidy. And, she has the support of the other elected Greens.

Opposing a budget can be seen as a no-confidence motion in the Westminster system. The thinking is that if a government does not have the support of the parliament for expenditure, it does not have the numbers to govern effectively. The concern of this precedent is that if one part of a budget can be amended, why not any other part that a backbencher dislikes?

There was a similar stoush regarding interfering with budgets by crossbenchers in 1994 resulting in an Assembly inquiry that verified only a Minister can propose expenditure. The doubt was whether a backbencher could “reduce” expenditure.

This was clarified in late 1995 and can be found in Standing Order 201A, which supports the Westminster Principles about increasing expenditure. However, it includes the phrase “other than those to reduce items of proposed expenditure”. 

Criticism of the stance taken by the Greens is not about standing orders and an MLA’s prerogative to seek to reduce expenditure. It is about consistency in the agreement that they have signed with Labor. It turns out they are not saddled with the “guarantee support for the passage of Appropriation Bills”.

The Labor-Greens coalition has supported a 2022 MOU with the racing industry and the cabinet has voted for the financial support. However, last year Ms Clay attempted to move a reduction of this funding by 20 per cent. This year she has upped the ante to a 40 per cent reduction. 

According to Ms Clay: “We would like to amend the budget on this one line item. But if we are not successful in this amendment, we will of course support the budget”.

This sounds like an each way bet.

Liberal MLA Mark Parton defended the subsidy for the horse racing industry as minor compared to other jurisdictions. He attacked the Labor-Greens coalition as attempting to “out progressive each other”. He pointed out that racing returned $32 million to the ACT and rather than “the sport of kings” is the sport of “minimum-wage battlers who do not hold the skills to be employed in other areas”.

He was responding to the substantial arguments Ms Clay presented about why the expenditure ought not proceed. These included, the MOU is not transparent, the level of subsidy is not consistent with payments to other sporting codes, and there was no scrutiny or apparent tender or other process to determine the amount of the grant. She argued that the revenue raised (including through gambling) is very minor compared to the grant.

She argues the “social licence” of the horse racing industry has run out. “We’re a progressive bunch here in the ACT and we’ve had enough,” and she believes she has the support of a “whopping 74 per cent of Canberrans”.

Minister Chris Steel, who had signed the agreement, attacked the Greens as pulling a “political stunt”. He pointed out that the Greens had not consulted with the clubs nor his office. He argued that only Labor and Liberals went to the election with a clear policy on this issue. 

Hardly the stuff of a coalition “built on trust and mutual respect”.

The expenditure through until 2027, in his opinion, was to “better regulate the industry” and added, “these proposed amendments would cripple our local racing industry” and “come at the cost of jobs, trust and integrity”.

The Greens motion was defeated by Labor and the Liberals. Many Canberrans would be happy with the cut to expenditure proposed by Jo Clay. If the racing industry crashes, Labor and the Greens would be chafing at the bit to access the huge amount of land right next to the tram for urban infill.

Michael Moore is a former member of the ACT Legislative Assembly and an independent minister for health. He has been a political columnist with “CityNews” since 2006.