Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is fitting that we discuss the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Amendment Bill 2013 on the day that Canberra celebrates its centenary. This bill is very timely, because it enhances the ability of the ACT assembly to be the master of its own destiny, and I think that is a reasonable aspiration for the parliament here within the ACT.

One hundred years ago in 1913, Lady Denman, who was wife of the then Governor-General, Lord Denman, stood upon the newly laid foundation stone and announced that the name of the new Australian capital would be Canberra. In an article by Ian Warden that was featured in the Canberra Times today, he described it as such:

The site that people descended on for the day (VIPs coming on special trains from Sydney and Melbourne to Queanbeyan from whence they were taken on in a fleet of new-fangled horseless carriages) was totally pastoral. There were just 1700 people in the federal territory, hopelessly outnumbered by 320,000 sheep.

Warden notes, spine tinglingly, that the name chosen by cabinet had not been leaked, and that the public had deluged the Department of Home Affairs with 750 suggested names, such as Eros, Cooee, Swindleville and Kangaremu. Those were discounted by the cabinet at the time but there were some other names that were taken seriously such as Federata, Parkes, Myola and, interestingly enough, Shakespeare.

Finally, the name of Canberra was chosen by the cabinet. That word is a derivation of an Aboriginal word Kamberra which means meeting place. As was noted by the Prime Minister quite aptly today in her comments about the centenary of Canberra, that was quite an interesting decision for a cabinet in 1913 to have taken. I think it fits very well with the nature of our society today.

In 1913 there was nothing much more here than a sheep paddock. In 1927 the capital was moved from Melbourne to Canberra. There would not have been a lot here. There would have just been politicians coming in for, I presume, much lengthier periods of time, given the nature of how difficult it would have been to travel from the various parts of the country then. I reflect about how it must have been then and how it is for us today. As politicians, funnily enough we would spend more time here than anywhere besides our home, but we can have very little interaction with the city. Shamefully, I can say I can come here for weeks on end and not leave the area within walking distance of Canberra Avenue. But I do actually know the city very well because I studied at the ANU. I was a little disappointed to be missed when the member for Fraser was going through the significant alumni. I assume that I will appear at some stage on that list.

It is true that we can interact very little with the city itself but I have the privilege of knowing the city very well because I have lived here for many years. I studied here and I subsequently worked here. I have been down to Tuggeranong and Belconnen and Woden. It is perhaps a shame that, when we come here for work for lengthy periods of time, we just do not get out to see the sorts of delights that Canberra does have to offer. I offer my personal congratulations to Canberrans on what is a very significant event in the life of their city.

The capital was administered by the national government up until 1989 and Canberrans were very reluctant to embrace self-government. Indeed, it came eventually after asking Canberrans whether they wanted it and Canberrans consistently saying no. The Hawke government at the time just insisted and passed the self-government act in 1989. It took a while for Canberrans to seriously embrace self-government. Prior to that, all the decisions had been made by the minister for territories. I think that was a good decision by the Hawke government to give the ACT self-government. I do not think it was necessarily that great to be administered directly by one federal government minister, even though there were advisory bodies that had been set up to advise that minister of matters of concern for residents of the ACT. Those advisory committees had existed since 1920 and were initially made up of appointed officials until some of them started to be elected in 1928 and in 1930 an ACT advisory council was established to advise the minister on matters that directly affected Canberrans.

The first fully elected body, the Legislative Assembly, originally consisted of 18 members and began operating in 1974. That is an interesting number to ponder because the current assembly only has 17 members, so it has less than that original advisory committee that was established in 1974 when Canberra would have been a significantly smaller place. The name was officially changed from the Legislative Assembly to the House of Assembly in 1979. However, the federal government was under no obligation to take the advice that was given by any of the appointed or elected bodies.

An advisory referendum, or plebiscite, was held on 25 November 1978 to ask residents whether the ACT should be granted self-government. A resounding 63½ per cent of electors voted against Canberra being granted self-government. So it was not until the late 1980s that the then Hawke government decided that the Australian Capital Territory with a population of 270,000 people did need its own system of self-administration. Then the federal parliament passed the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 along with other related legislation which established self-government in the ACT.

Notably, however, section 122 of the Constitution allows the Commonwealth to override a territory law at any time. The Commonwealth has used its power under section 122 on a few occasions only and in cases where the territory law has created much debate or controversy within the Australian community. I think that is right. I think that for one parliament, where the federal parliament overrides the wishes of another democratically elected parliament, the circumstances need to be extremely dire for that course of action to be warranted. Once a territory has been given self-government and once they elect their own officials, it is really quite improper in my view—apart from the most extreme circumstances—for another group of elected officials to override the wishes of that lawfully elected parliament.

Up until 2011 the self-government acts covering the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory gave federal ministers the right to veto or change territory laws without referring the matter to the federal parliament. That is quite an extraordinary power for a federal minister, if you think about it, to be able to unilaterally override the wishes of the elected parliament within the ACT or the Northern Territory, and that act has now been amended to remove this veto power.

This bill is a further enhancement of the ability of the ACT Legislative Assembly to set its own course, and in this case it has set the course about how many elected officials should sit within the Legislative Assembly. It is a unicameral legislature. All states with the exception of Queensland have two houses of parliament from which to draw a cabinet and the expertise. Seventeen members of parliament for a city of 325,000—

An honourable member: 375,00—

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

375,000 in Canberra! It has grown rapidly! I think Tasmania has about 500,000 and so you can see that Canberrans, funnily enough, as the seat of the federal parliament, are not overly represented by their own politicians. It makes sense that if it is the will of the Assembly to expand the number of politicians within that Assembly, that they should be allowed to do so, and it is my understanding that both of the major parties represented in the Assembly wish to do this. It seems highly likely that they will vote—and they will need a two-thirds majority under this legislation—to increase the number of members within the Assembly itself and, if they feel that that is the appropriate course of action, then they should be entitled to do that and this legislation will enable them to do just that. This bill will change the mechanism by which the size of the Assembly can be adjusted. It does not itself make any changes to the size of the Assembly, but it will leave that now within the hands of the Assembly itself.

In conclusion, I wish to point out the very good work that the one opposition representative within the coalition party room representing the ACT, Senator Gary Humphries, does on behalf of his constituents, which are all the people of Canberra. He has had a very distinguished political career in the ACT parliament where he was Deputy Chief Minister and subsequently served as Chief Minister. He has served his city with great distinction. Clearly, sometimes he has been at odds with some of his colleagues within the coalition party room about what he believes is an appropriate course of action for his community. I respect him greatly for the efforts that he has gone to to stand up for his community. I have seen him take on the vast majority of the party room when he believes the interests of Canberra are being threatened. I have not necessarily agreed with his positions but he has been a very strong and vocal advocate for his constituents. I just want to note that here today, because it is a great privilege to work with Gary both as the one opposition representative for the ACT but also somebody who works within my portfolio areas as well. He is an exceptionally capable and intelligent member of the upper chamber. In this centenary year of the ACT, he will hold a significant place within the history of the self-governing territory. I wanted to acknowledge that here today.

In conclusion, in the centenary year of Canberra it is appropriate that the Legislative Assembly of the ACT be allowed to set its own destiny in regard to it size. The opposition therefore supports this bill. I note that it has had the strong support of both of the major parties within the assembly. It is right that the federal parliament pass it.

It is a pleasure to rise to speak on the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Amendment Bill 2013 today, the 100th birthday of Canberra. This morning we had a re-enactment out the front of Parliament House of the ceremony of the laying of the foundation stone. I have here the program for that ceremony, which was held on 12 March 1913. Today's ceremony aimed to shadow that historic ceremony of 1913, when sheep greatly outnumbered the residents of Canberra. The ceremony this morning acknowledged the rich history of Canberra—not only the political heritage but also the social tapestry of the city. I was very pleased today to hear the member for Stirling speak so warmly of the city that I have the honour to represent in the federal parliament.

Walter Burley Griffin said that he was designing a city for a nation of 'bold democrats'. To borrow a phrase from Seamus Heaney, I have always thought of Canberra as being the kind of place where hope and history rhyme. In the centenary celebrations, Canberra has been given an opportunity to celebrate but also to remember much of our history. Historian David Headon has produced a series of centenary booklets and centenary director Robyn Archer has made sure that history has been interwoven into the celebrations.

We have also taken the opportunity to invest in the city of Canberra. The Australian government has contributed $20 million to the development of a visitors centre, a children's play space, ceremonial gardens, an events pavilion and an events terrace at the National Arboretum. In building the National Arboretum, we really are reaching out to the generations to come, because arboretums often involve planting saplings that will only become great trees once we have shuffled off this mortal coil.

There is also an opportunity for communities to come together. One of my regrets about today is that I am missing out on the street parties that are being held throughout my electorate. The parties in Lyneham and Hackett in particular are ones that I would have looked forward to attending. They are in fact going on at this very moment. They are bringing together communities to have a bit of fun and enjoy their history.

One of my contributions to the celebrations has been through the celebrity suburb name competition, which involves thinking about who or what your suburb might have been named after if you had particularly wicked ancestors. For example, Cook might have been named after Master Chef, Dunlop after tyres, Latham after Mark Latham, Reid after Chopper Reid, Russell after Russell Crowe and of course Scullin after the Oarsome Foursome.

This is an extraordinary city to live in and to represent. Ours is the bush capital, where you can look up and see hills from inside a shopping centre. There are plenty of cockatoos and magpies and, yes, even galahs. When the scoping party visited Canberra in August 1906, a newspaper reported wrote: 'A deep breath of the air is like a draft of champagne.'

Federal parliamentarian King O'Malley turned Canberra's chilly climes to his advantage by saying:

I want us to have a climate where men can hope. We cannot have hope in hot countries.

A sentiment, I am sure, thought of by many a pub-goer to King O'Malley's Irish Pub in Civic on a cold winter's night.

Canberra is Australia's sporting capital. We have the Australian Institute of Sport and a plethora of great sporting teams—the Comets, the Brumbies, the Raiders, the Capitals, Cavalry, Strikers, Knights, Lakers and GWS. But we also play more sport than people in other parts of Australia. Four out of 10 Canberrans play an organised sport compared with three out of 10 for the rest of Australia.

Canberra is Australia's ideas capital. Wi-Fi was invented at CSIRO. Our most recent Nobel laureate is Brian Schmidt, the ANU researcher, who won a Nobel Prize for his research on the expanding universe. We also have ideas generated by the public servants, such as HECS, Medicare, universal superannuation and plain packaging. We have social entrepreneurs in Canberra who are inspirational for the rest of the country.

We are also the country's history capital. We are not the oldest city in Australia but we are the only capital city in Australia named after the traditional owners rather than one of the white interlopers. All around us the nation's history is the local geography for Canberra—suburbs from Deakin to Curtin, Scullin to Chifley. In fact, the only one you feel sorry for is Prime Minister Gorton, the only Prime Minister to make Canberra his home after retirement but who missed having a suburb named after himself because the planners wanted to avoid confusion with 'Gordon'.

We are also Australia's social capital. Walter Burley Griffin wanted ours to be a community with 'great democratic civic ideals', and I think he would be pleased to know that Canberrans are more likely to volunteer than people in other parts of Australia and more likely to donate money to a charity. They are more likely to trust others and to join community organisations. Part of that is not just the fact that Canberrans are, on average, a touch better educated and a touch more affluent than the rest of Australia, because even when you compare like with like you see that Canberrans are more civically engaged than people of similar demographics. I think it is something to do with the urban design—the fact that in Canberra you do not have to burn a litre of petrol to buy a litre of milk; that you can live in the suburbs but walk to local shops. That means, for example, that a Sydneysider with a full-time job spends 13 days a year commuting—13 24-hour days just sitting in the car. A Canberran with a full-time job spends eight days a year commuting. That is an extra five days a year to spend with friends and family, playing an organised sport or getting involved with family and the community.

That is not to say that we should not work to improve Canberra. I do commend the member for Stirling for his bipartisan support for this bill. This bill is a recognition of the work that is being done by ACT Chief Minister Katy Gallagher appointing an expert reference group to review the size of the ACT Legislative Assembly. That expert reference group comprised ACT Electoral Commissioner Phillip Green, who is the chair; Anne Cahill Lambert; Meredith Edwards; John Hindmarsh; and Louise Taylor. This expert review will look at the number of electorates and the number of members per electorate.

I have put a submission into that inquiry because I believe that it is important first and foremost that the assembly be able to set its size, as state parliaments can already do. The ACT assembly, now into its third decade, has proved itself the decision-making equal of any other parliament in Australia and I believe ought to be able to set its own size.

The workload of ACT parliamentarians is significant indeed. A standard rule for the size of an assembly body, if you look across parliaments around the world, is an assembly size of about the cube root of the population it represents. So, for example, if you take Australia's population—23 million—the cube root of 23 million is 284, not far off the 226 members of the Australian parliament.

If you take New South Wales, for example, the population is seven million. The cube root of seven million is 191 and the New South Wales parliament has 135 representatives—in the ballpark of what the cube root rule would lead you to expect. But if you apply that to the ACT's population—375,000—you get an assembly size of 72, four times larger than the current assembly. Put another way, you can ask the question: 'If you had an assembly of 17 people, what population size should it represent?' The answer is about 5,000 people, about the population of Palmerston, one of the suburbs in my electorate.

That may sound ridiculous, but if you look to Norfolk Island, for example, it has a nine-member assembly serving 2,000 people; Wreck Bay in my own electorate, with a population of 200, has a community council of nine people. So the ACT assembly is almost uniquely small for the workload that it deals with. Its current 17 MLAs are particularly hard working. I would particularly acknowledge the numerous mobile offices run by Chris Bourke, Mary Porter, Mick Gentleman and Joy Burch; the doorknocking work of Yvette Berry; and the hectic public speaking schedules of Katy Gallagher, Simon Corbell and Andrew Barr.

It is tough to be an MLA in the ACT for two reasons. The first is that the number of people they must represent is large. The second is the number of issues are vast, because there is no local council here, unlike, say, the Northern Territory or Tasmania. The work of the assembly ranges from everything from schools to garbage collection. The result of having a 17-member assembly is that government members who are in the ministry can hold between four and six ministries. These are exceptionally high workloads and they are replicated among the shadow ministers.

It is also worth pointing out that not only does the assembly represent a very large number of people for its size but that it is also true of federal electorates. My own electorate of Fraser now has 131,698 people on the electoral roll. That is either the largest or the second largest of any of the 150 members in the House of Representatives. At the last federal election the average number of electors per electorate was 94,000. But at current rates of population growth it does not look as though the ACT will receive a third seat in the House of Representatives. That then expands the workload on the ACT's House of Representatives members. We deal with a considerable number of local queries and I believe that the representation of the ACT population would be improved were we to have a larger assembly.

The assembly size is for the assembly, but my own view is that increasing the assembly to 25 MLAs—five electorates each returning five members—is the minimum that ought to be considered. That would be still well below the ratio of members per population that other states and territories have. In fact, it would only provide a level of representation comparable to 1989, when the territory first attained self-government. I do think that the territory, were it to go to only 25 members, should do so in conjunction with a commitment to steadily increase the assembly size as the population of the ACT grows. I think that would be appropriate, given the extremely large workload of the assembly.

So while I commend my assembly colleagues on their hard work, I do hope that there will be bipartisan support for this. I was very pleased to hear the member for Stirling speaking of the federal coalition's bipartisan support. But I am aware that there are always temptation to play politics with this. I can see the temptation that the ACT Liberals may face, where they decide that they can run some sort of cheap, populist line of saying that they are going to vote against extra politicians. While it might be in their immediate political interest, it would not be in the long-term interests of the ACT, and I do urge them to place those long-term interests first.

In closing, I make mention of a great Canberran, CEO of the ACT and Region Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Chris Peters. Chris passed away on 27 February this year. He had a ready smile, a generosity of spirit and a willingness to engage in public debates on matters large and small in the ACT. His commitment to building this great city, I think, will live on beyond him. He is known as a great advocate for business in Canberra, and having great advocates for business—as I know the member for Canberra is and as am I—is so important to ensuring that this diverse city does well in its second century. I commend the bill to the House.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Higher Education and Skills) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is my pleasure to sum up this debate, and I would like to thank all the members for their contribution. I do feel a bit like the town crier of birthday felicitations as I spoke earlier in the chamber to wish Wollongong headspace a happy fifth birthday and I have great pleasure in summing this bill up and wishing Canberra a happy 100th birthday today, so it is a great day to be speaking in the chamber. I also acknowledge the two speakers before me, the members for Stirling and Fraser, and I am sure in the great tradition of bipartisan reaching across the aisles they will, in a particularly positive manner, resolve the contentious issue of the member for Stirling as an ANU illustrious alumni in his assessment and make the member for Fraser's list in the future. I am sure they will resolve that matter.

It is appropriate that the bill be debated in the House today as it is the 100th anniversary of the laying of a foundation stone and the proclamation of the name of Canberra. Earlier today, as the previous speakers outlined, at the front of this building, the Prime Minister and the minister for regional Australia were joined by the Governor-General, representatives from all parties, Indigenous elders and a live television audience for a ceremony at Canberra's foundation stone. The leaders of 100 years ago came to Canberra's naming ceremony with the same enthusiasm, pride and optimism for the future that still drives us today. In many ways, the city's development has mirrored the nation's into a confident and vibrant place, nurturing the Australian sense of community and building resilience for the challenges of the future. Canberra is home to the institutions of Australian democracy and to many of the historical and cultural collections that tell our national story. The city should be and is a source of pride for all Australians. Regional Australia Minister, Simon Crean, said that the legacy of Canberra's founders would be strongly felt as it continued into its second century.

We have the bill today that reflects on the maturity of this city-state. The purpose of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Amendment Bill 2013 is to amend the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 to grant the ACT Legislative Assembly the power to determine its size. Currently, the process to change the number of members of the assembly requires a resolution to be passed by the assembly and then for regulations to be made by the Commonwealth and agreed to by the assembly. A now mature parliament, self-governing for more than 20 years, should not require the permission of another parliament to adjust itself to meet changing demands over time. The passage of the bill will provide just recognition of the maturity and capacity of the ACT Legislative Assembly demonstrated since it has attained self-government. What the passage of this bill does not represent is a change in the size of the assembly, only the mechanism by which change can occur if desired by the assembly. Nor does the bill represent a panacea to any particular issues that the assembly may face. I am sure all members will agree that it is a fitting act on this historic day, a celebration of the 100 years of the capital, that we support this bill, and I commend it to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Order that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.