While correctly drawing attention to the failings of majority government in the ACT Assembly and in particular the Stanhope Government, Keith Hume (Letters, August 5) ought to have tried to address why this failure comes about.
Majority government should provide just the opposite, with beneficial advantages for our community as it manages in the best interests of the community, unfettered by some of the irrational meanderings by single-issue, Neanderthal Independents that we have witnessed over the history of past ACT governments. So what's gone wrong?
Firstly, the Stanhope Government has not only had a majority, it was struck by the well-recognised third-term syndrome when government members fall into the trap of being out of touch with reality, embraced in a cocoon of inward-focusing bureaucrats and party networks. Unable to see the woods for the trees.
I would be surprised if the Liberals didn't recognise this syndrome if they looked back honestly at their last term in government.
The problem with the Stanhope Government's past four years is not so much majority government but arrogance and complacency mixed with a dangerous lashing of ego, brought on by being divorced too long from reality.
Add to this, Members who have been out of the real world in most cases for 10 years, on top of a narrow background of party machine and university experience.
A bit of maturity and business history among their ''team'' may have helped them to not lose sight of what governance is all about. I agree with Hume, we desperately need ''some fresh and competent talent''.
Val Jeffery, Tharwa
In 1989, with the excitement of self-government for the ACT, there was a plethora of small parties to the point of absurdity.
Then in three subsequent elections, division into the two main parties emerged, yet with neither having a full majority.
This gave smaller parties, and particularly Independents, disproportionate power.
The ACT electorate seemed entranced by idiosyncratic individuals, who at a whim could exercise a brake on any long-term responsible policy.
For instance, on the crucial matter of the routing of the Gungahlin Drive Extension, two Independents took a stroll around a playing field and arbitrarily decided where it would go. They had the power.
At last, in 2004, the electorate responsibly put in a full government, and long-term far-sighted measures began.
Inevitably some of these have not been popular.
Furthermore, power has at times been exercised with insufficient community consultation.
Nevertheless, to revert to electing a fragmented Assembly, with government at the mercy of small groups, would be irresponsible and an abuse of our privilege of self-government.
Don't let's have government by narrow interests, whether they are motorists, religious ex-policemen, or ''sun-dried tomatoes'' (1989).
Jack Palmer, Watson
Think outside box
What is it with the current trend of designing and building enormous boxes to reside in? (''Australian Institute of Architects Awards'', August 7, p22). Look at the examples on the page.
I have recently arrived in Canberra and am surprised to find most of the new architecture is ''boxed''.
The institute's award for a ''double box'' does not encourage vision or creativity.
It may be brilliant on the inside but it leaves a lot to be desired on the outside.
Homes and business houses should provide a more appealing facade and inner energy than a square.
I do hope there are other designers out there who think ''outside the box''.
Irene Sunn, Kambah
Email a friend
Favourites
Del.icio.us
Facebook
Digg
StumbleUpon
MySpace
Reddit
Newsvine
LinkedIn
Kwoff