Following on from my article last week about whether the ACT should revert to a council-style government, I note that the local Greens are at it again, with calls by Andrew Braddock to increase the size of the Assembly from 25 to 35 members. The idea here is no doubt to ensure, on current voting trends, that more Greens are elected (at least one Green per electorate). Just what we need!
Might I suggest we take a different tack? I have no problem with seven-member electorates, indeed, with the current status quo of two Labor members per electorate and a Green in four of the five electorates, a continuation of the current government would likely be inevitable if we stay at five members per electorate.
However, if the number of electorates were reduced to three, and they followed the boundaries of the three Federal House of Representatives electorates, we could reduce the size of the Assembly from 25 to 21.
Now, before anyone gives me that nonsense about needing lots of ministers to share the workload (currently eight), I say that’s rubbish.
A look at the current portfolio responsibilities shows that some ministers are very light on compared to others. Up until the 2016 election, there were only 17 members of the Assembly and four or five ministers.
I served in several governments as a minister when there were only four ministers (from 1995 to 1998, then from late 2000 to late 2001). It was busy but not impossible — in fact, quite enjoyable. When we went from four to five ministers in 1998, I found it very reasonable time-wise, and I think for a place like the ACT, five is an ideal number.
If the Assembly were reduced in size to 21, we could still have six ministers — more than enough in my experience. As a government would need a majority of 11 to govern, that still leaves room for a Speaker and four backbenchers. Four backbenchers is more than enough to fill out the committee structure.
In the first Follett government, poor old Bill Wood, as the only Labor backbencher, was on all the committees. Recent practice has also seen a non-government member appointed Speaker — Shane Rattenbury from the Greens in 2008, Vicky Dunne from the Liberals in 2012, and now Mark Parton from the Liberals in 2024 — which would leave five government members available for committees.
If we had reduced the Assembly to 21 members in 2020, Fiona Carrick would most likely have been elected for Murrumbidgee, as would a Belco Party candidate — either the late Chic Henry or myself in Ginninderra. Another option might be to have three electorates of nine members. This would certainly make it easier for good independents to have a realistic chance of being elected. You could even keep the ministry at eight — three too many, in my view.
I’d like to see the government look at reducing the size of the Assembly to 21 now that Mr Braddock has raised the issue. Aligning with the three Federal electorates locally makes a lot of sense, and moving to 21 members would also save money by having fewer politicians, a simpler electorate system, and reduced support services and staff for the Assembly.
Over to you, Chief Minister.
