Politics

By Michael Moore

ACT Speaker Shane Rattenbury has a big job ahead of him to prove that he has not bitten off more than he can chew.  Traditionally, the Speaker is chosen on the grounds of experience, confidence of the House and impartiality. Instead, the Greens manipulated Labor into supporting someone with no parliamentary experience, without the confidence of the House and who has rejected his own impartiality by taking on portfolio responsibilities.
The Westminster parliamentary system is not sacrosanct. However, in varying parliamentary practice an assessment ought to be made about whether such changes are ones that are likely to achieve more open and effective democracy, or if they are just for short-term political expedience. In this case it seems that the Greens have gone for political expedience.
It would be unfortunate, but understandable for the Liberals to launch a barrage of attacks on the new Speaker. They owe the Speaker nothing. They owe the Greens nothing. Unfortunately, the result would be to drag the ACT Assembly back into the level of disrepute that plagued it during the early days of the legislature. At that time, No Self-Government Party Speaker, David Prowse, took on the role to uphold the dignity of the parliament. He did so even though he had been elected as a member of a party specifically created to oppose that very institution. 
The ACT Assembly takes its practice and procedures from the Westminster system. This does not mean that blind adherence to the British House of Commons Practice should be adopted.  Throughout the world, Westminster-based parliamentary systems have been adapted to take account of local circumstances. The Federal Parliament in Australia has now assumed a wide range of alternative practices from the House of Commons that recognise the different size and make-up of the two parliaments. However, the underlying Westminster principles still apply.
Impartiality is a fundamental characteristic of the Speaker in a Westminster system. Erskine May, who is recognised as the leading authority on the Westminster system, suggests “the impartiality of the Speaker is an indispensable condition of the working of procedure, and many conventions exist which have as their object not only to ensure impartiality of the Speaker, but also to ensure that his impartiality is generally recognised.”
In Australia, Ian Harris’ “House of Representatives Practice” carries a similar theme stating “one of the hallmarks of good Speakership is the requirement for a high degree of impartiality in the execution of the duties of the office”. 
The negotiations resulting in the Labor-Green accord entirely favoured the Labor Party and simply excluded the Liberals who do not even get to chair the powerful Public Accounts Committee. The outcome challenges any idea of impartiality of the Greens, including key negotiator Shane Rattenbury. The new Speaker in the ACT Assembly has shadow portfolio responsibilities. It is difficult to see how accepting such duties cannot mean excessive work, divided loyalties and the inability to remain impartial. 
In “House of Representatives Practice” Harris also says: “The role the Speaker… by virtue of the office requires the position to be filled by a dedicated, senior and experienced parliamentarian.” He then quotes Erskine May: “Experience that can only be acquired through many years spent on the benches of the House itself”.
In their manipulation to have a Speaker from their own party, whatever their reasoning, the Greens seemed to have missed some basic premises about the role and the extent of the duties of the Speaker. 
For the Speaker “the foremost duty is to the House and its Members in upholding its dignity and protecting its rights and privileges”. Although the manner in which a person is dressed generally is of little consequence. However, the fact that the very first issue for Speaker Rattenbury was a debate over whether or not to wear a tie does not bode well for his ability to meet this criterion.
Assembly Standing Order 16 (a) iii requires the Speaker to “arrange the order of private Members’ business and Assembly business”.  It may seem clever that the Speaker will now have the opportunity to favour his own portfolio responsibilities in determining what matter is to be debated first and what will be left to last. There will be many opportunities for him considering the wide range of portfolio duties beyond his role of Speaker. They include: Attorney General, Environment, Climate Change and Water, Energy, Police and Emergency Services as well as Tourism, Sport and Recreation. 
In this situation lies a conflict of interest. It is one of the reasons that Speakers have never carried portfolio responsibilities in any Australian parliament. On the matter of the election of the Speaker, perhaps the rush of power to the head meant that too little thought went into making such a poor decision. Or perhaps these new politicians are just too green to understand the consequences.
Michael Moore is a former independent member of the ACT Legislative Assembly and minister for health.