Three governments in one Assembly… members of the first ACT Assembly pictured in 1989 (Michael Moore is top row, third from the left).
“The Greens are really feeling the loss of the innovative Shane Rattenbury… from the time he arrived in the Legislative Assembly in 2008 the Greens committed to a guarantee on confidence and supply,” writes political columnist MICHAEL MOORE.
The first ACT Assembly ought to have taught Canberrans, and particularly their MLAs, the importance of stable government.
Michael Moore.
The highest level of government accountability can be attained through a stable minority government combined with an active crossbench and an effective opposition.
Greens Leader Jo Clay could learn the lessons from the first days of self-government. In the first Assembly from 1989 to 1992, there was a Labor government, followed by a Liberal-led “Alliance Government”, followed by another Labor government.
At the following election it was only a few hundred votes that made the difference between a majority government and annihilation of the crossbench. The vast majority of voters were very clear – they wanted a stable government.
“Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it”. The statement is attributed to American philosopher George Santayana and became popular through its use in William Shirer’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.
It is a concept that the Greens would be wise to consider.
Following talks with Chief Minister Andrew Barr, the Greens announced they would no longer sign to support the government on confidence and supply, nor would they go into government with the Liberals.
Undoubtedly, the Greens are really feeling the loss of the innovative Shane Rattenbury. It was Mr Rattenbury who served for 13 years in the Assembly and found his way through a series of different relationships with the government.
From the time he arrived in the Legislative Assembly in 2008 the Greens committed to a guarantee on confidence and supply.
In the following term Mr Rattenbury made an agreement with then chief Minister Katy Gallagher, where he was a minister but (apart from his own portfolios) was not bound by the principle of “cabinet solidarity”. From 2020-24 the Greens became part of a formal coalition. However, this appeared to reduce their popularity amongst voters – and they dropped from six Greens MLAs to four.
In the current ACT Assembly, the four MLAs determined to sit independently on the crossbench intending to extract greater accountability from the long-term Labor government.
Since 2008 the Greens have guaranteed supply. Until now.
Ms Clay made clear that the Greens will not sign any agreement with the government for the rest of this term. This is understandable.
However, rather than a commitment to Labor to allow their government to have its budget, the assurance should be made to Canberrans. It does not need a signed agreement. But their commitment is fundamental for effective, accountable and stable government.
The importance of allowing the government to have their budget is that the party of government must justify to the Assembly, and to the community, that the money they raise (supply) and the money they spend (expenditure) is managed responsibly in the interest of the people they serve.
It is great short-term politics for crossbenchers when they pick favourite projects and demand they be funded. However, they do not take the responsibility of supply. Caving to such demands is the fastest way to have the ACT budget completely out of control. As if there are not enough problems already!
Greens Leader Jo Clay could learn the lessons from the first days of self-government.
Having failed to secure a formal agreement with the Greens, Labor suggests “decisions of this nature should continue to be informed by consultation, budget processes, implementation planning, operational considerations, emerging evidence and the territory’s fiscal circumstances”.
Persuading a government of the importance of a particular expenditure is one thing. Trading support for a particular issue or funding, for a guarantee of confidence in the government, simply undermines stability and accountability.
And although it is critical for all crossbenchers to vote on each issue according to its merits, this does not apply to cherry-picking budget or supply. They are the responsibility of the government.
The statements of Ms Clay on the upcoming budget give some hope. She announced the Greens will support the upcoming budget although the “budget is not perfect”.
She was a little more guarded regarding the confidence issue arguing “the Greens don’t treat no-confidence motions lightly”. There is a big difference between a motion of no-confidence in a minister and a motion of no-confidence in the chief minister.
In the case of the chief minister, it means a fall of government – and the result is the sort of instability that was characterised by the first ACT Assembly and its three different governments.
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.
"The PM has used his power to alter staffing numbers based purely on political objectives. It is one of the more concerning uses of executive power in modern times because of the impact it has on our democracy," writes ANDREW HUGHES.
Anthony Albanese has been warning of the need for AI guardrails – now a rogue agent breaching a government firewall has made his case for him, writes political columnist MICHELLE GRATTAN.
Anthony Albanese’s smiling selfie with Donald Trump belied a sharp divide over AI guardrails, as Washington also attacked Australia’s proposed Digital Duty of Care, writes political columnist MICHELLE GRATTAN.
Leave a Reply