Page 2016 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 5 August 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
note this, that the Assembly should increase to 35 in the following election; I think that is just simply too big. The case, in my view, has not been made for 35 members. I also disagree with the view that it has taken in building the case of comparing this jurisdiction and the number of elected representatives in the ACT with other jurisdictions. Ultimately, it is my view that that is largely irrelevant. We have a unique system here; we should have as many MLAs as are required, and no more. If other jurisdictions have more, or less, that is their business, not ours.
As has been identified, the size of the Assembly as it is currently structured, with 17 members, has led to a number of failings over the years. The first is that the size of the ministry has been too small. It is worth noting that today we have moved to the sixth minister—I welcome the new minister, Mr Gentleman, in his role here today—and certainly the opposition has supported that. Six ministers is a good first step towards providing that governance. The reality is that, with less than five ministers, members have had too many portfolios. Even with six ministers, the distribution of portfolios means that ministers have too many responsibilities.
The second point I would make is that as a result of the small size of the Assembly, the Chief Minister struggles amongst a pool of eight, as she has, to find individuals to be ministers. I am not in the business of having a go at anyone personally, but I think that is a factor that has come to bear; it is a reality. Some people, through inexperience or through their skill set, are just not suited to be ministers. A greater expansion, a greater size for a party that forms government, would provide the ability to select from a greater talent pool.
The problem that arises out of those two issues is that, when you have ministers who perhaps are inexperienced and maybe would not have been ministers in other jurisdictions, compounded by the fact that ministers have an extraordinary number of responsibilities, unelected officials in the ACT in many ways have disproportionate power. When you have a chat to some of the directors-general and other bureaucrats—who are, in many cases or across the board, of high quality, well meaning, ethical and very hardworking—you will find that they will agree that they have a situation where their ministers are extraordinarily busy, where they are spread too thin. We have a situation where people who are not elected, who are not accountable to the people of the ACT, are in a position where they can implement policies, build fiefdoms, make decisions and influence policy. That is not as accountable as it should be. Ironically, more politicians, if they do their job right, because they are accountable to the people of the ACT, may actually limit the growth of unnecessary bureaucracy and unnecessary regulation.
Another key factor is the size of our three electorates. Those of us in the electorate of Molonglo in particular would understand the challenges that brings when you are trying to represent people in a number of disparate and diverse communities. In Molonglo, there is Gungahlin, the inner north, the inner south, the city, Woden and Weston Creek. The reality for all of us is that we simply are spread too thin. And because the bulk of the government is tied up in the ministry, in this case, for this government, there are three backbenches to do the bulk of that constituent work. That is not enough.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video