12 Australian Capital Territory

It  is paradoxical that the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), as the national capital and seat of the federal parliament, should have the least political representation per capita of any state or territory jurisdiction in the country.^[1] The ACT currently has three federal electorates, two senators and a 25-member unicameral Legislative Assembly.^[2] By comparison, Tasmania, despite having a similar sized population to the ACT has five federal electorates, 12 senators, a 25-member lower house and a 40-member upper house, as well as 29 local government areas.

The ACT is quite small by Australian standards with a land area of approximately 2,358 square kilometres. This makes it Australia’s smallest mainland territory or state – only the external island territories are smaller. It is roughly one-third the size of greater Sydney and is smaller than many individual local government areas in other states, and about 30 times smaller than Tasmania, which is Australia’s smallest state.

Most of the population lives in inner Canberra and its surrounding districts (Belconnen, Woden Valley, Tuggeranong, etc.), while significant portions of the territory are national parks, nature reserves, and rural land. The terms ‘Canberra’ and ‘ACT’ are often used interchangeably as the vast majority of development and population is in the city and suburbs of Canberra and as such is Australia’s only ‘city state.’
This chapter will explore the history and politics of this ‘city state’.^[3] In doing so, it asks a number of questions. Given the disparity in representation, is the ACT more or less effectively governed than other jurisdictions? Is its relationship with the Commonwealth government different from that of other states and territories? Situated entirely within New South Wales (NSW), what is its political and policy relationship with that state? What is the constitutional basis of its government? What level of autonomy does the ACT possess for policy?

Historical context

The ACT is a creature of Australia’s federal union in 1901. At Federation there was no officially proclaimed national capital. The first federal parliament met in Melbourne while the government decided on where to locate the capital to provide it with security and also not ‘favour’ either Sydney or Melbourne. The search for a suitable place was narrowed down to a spot mid-way between the two rival cities, and the site for Canberra – on the land of the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people – was chosen in 1908. The territory was formally ceded to the Commonwealth by NSW in 1909.

This site offered an inland – hence defensible – neutral site for a purpose-built city, with a good water supply and so the Australian Capital Territory was created in 1911 when:

• Land was transferred from New South Wales to the Commonwealth;
• This fulfilled the constitutional requirement (Section 125) that the seat of government be in Commonwealth territory at least 100 miles from Sydney;
• The territory was formally established on 1 January 1911.

So, the territory was carved out of existing NSW land through legal instruments – the Seat of Government Acceptance Act 1909 (Cwth) and Seat of Government Act 1910 (Cwth).

The foundation stone for the city of Canberra, officially naming the capital, was laid in 1913 and can still be viewed on the lawns of Federation Mall, in front of Parliament House. Work on the city was interrupted between 1914 and 1918 by the First World War, and parliament finally moved into its ‘temporary’ Parliament House in 1927; it remained there for a further 61 years before the permanent one opened in 1988.

As a planned city that embraced modern concepts like private car ownership and suburban living, Canberra was always intended to be a showpiece – the locus of national government in a garden city. It is the site of various national institutions and monuments, as well as the instruments of government: many government departments, agencies, and related bodies. During the city’s construction, most of the public service departments remained in Melbourne, but as Canberra was completed, stage by stage, the departments relocated. This process explains why, even today, many peak bodies and lobbying organisations are still headquartered in Melbourne.^[4]

The post–war years saw a rapid increase in population with the expansion of government departments and the associated construction of housing and city amenities. Workers, including office workers, moving to the city were often housed in government-run hostels, and displaced persons from Europe worked and lived in those hostels. Between 1955 and 1975, the population of the ACT increased by 50 per cent every five years.

During the 1970s, the population of the ACT reached 224,000 and there was a growing push for self-government. According to Halligan and Wettenhall, there were largely two schools of thought regarding this proposal: self-government advocates believed that Canberrans, with no state or territory level of government, did not have the same democratic rights as other Australians; opponents to self-government ‘preferred to trade these rights for the financial benefits that came from being a federally protected and heavily subsidised enclave within the nation’.^[5]In 1978, a plebiscite was held in the ACT on self-government. Voters were given three choices on the ballot form: retain the current arrangements; self-government; or a local council arrangement with legislative and executive responsibility. The result of the referendum was overwhelmingly in favour of retaining Commonwealth administration (see Table 1).

By the late 1980s, however, the ACT population had grown to almost 300,000, and the Commonwealth, despite the results of the referendum, decided that the ACT should become a self-governing jurisdiction. This required four separate Acts of the Commonwealth parliament:

• Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 (Cth);
• Australian Capital Territory (Electoral) Act 1988 (Cth);
• Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988 (Cth);
• Australian Capital Territory Self-Government (Consequential Provisions) Act 1988 (Cth).

These Acts were signed into law on 6 December 1988. The first of these is essentially the constitution of the ACT and sets out the framework for government and the system of governance.

The Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988 oversaw the ACT Plan and the Spatial Plan, which set out the development provisions for the ACT, under the auspices of the National Capital Authority. This is still current legislation, but its role is now distinct from the newer ACT Planning Act 2023.^[6] The original 1988 Act remains the law governing the planning and management of National Land (land managed by the Commonwealth), while the ACT’s 2023 Act governs the planning and development of Territory land within the ACT.

Self-government in the ACT

Like other Australian governments, the ACT has three branches of government: the legislature (Legislative Assembly), the executive (Chief Minister and Cabinet), and the judiciary (courts). The Legislative Assembly is described as ‘most important’ because it is the only directly elected branch and the source from which the executive derives its authority. Like all other jurisdictions in Australia, the ACT has a parliamentary system, where the executive government (Chief Minister and ministers) is drawn from members of the Legislative Assembly, remains accountable to it and must maintain the confidence of the Assembly to stay in power.

A major difference in the ACT (and the Northern Territory NT) is that there is no vice-regal representative – no Governor. In the Commonwealth and all six states there is a vice-regal head of state (Governor-General federally, Governors in states). These vice-regal representatives exercise reserve powers and perform ceremonial head-of-state functions and the executive technically governs in the name of the Crown through these representatives. Thus, in the ACT, the Chief Minister performs many functions that would elsewhere fall to a Governor, though some vice-regal functions are instead handled by the federal Governor-General since the territories exist under Commonwealth constitutional authority rather than as sovereign entities like the states.

This means the ACT has a more streamlined system without the symbolic separation between head of state and head of government that exists elsewhere in Australia. In practice, this means that once a law is passed in the ACT Legislative Assembly, the bill is notified in the ACT Gazette and becomes law – unlike the states, there is no royal assent stage since the ACT has no vice-regal representative.

Today, the ACT is governed by a unicameral 25-person Legislative Assembly, elected using a system of multi-member electorates with preferential balloting (see below).

The ACT’s small geographic size is one reason it has distinctive governance arrangements – including its single-tier government structure where the Legislative Assembly performs both state-like and local government functions.^[7] Like a state government, it is responsible for developing and implementing policy across the normal territorial responsibilities: finance and economy, justice, environment, education, health, housing and development, transport, and employment. Like a local government, it also has responsibility for municipal functions such as waste management, sportsground maintenance, footpaths, kerbing and guttering, libraries, development applications, and parks and gardens.

The ACT does not have its own police service; instead, general or community policing is carried out by the Australian Federal Police. The AFP provides this service through ACT Policing. The ACT Policing Arrangement and Purchase Agreement outlines the arrangements in place between the ACT Government and the Commonwealth for these services.^[8]

Developments in self-government

The first ACT election was held on 4 March 1989. It was conducted under a modified d’Hondt (party list) electoral system, with the whole of the ACT comprising one 17-member electorate. The election was contested by 117 candidates, representing 22 political parties and independents.

A measure of the somewhat jaundiced view of residents towards self-government in 1989, and also reflecting the results of the earlier referendums, was that the parties contesting the election included the imaginatively named Surprise Party, the Sun-Ripened Warm Tomato Party, and the Party! Party! Party! Party. Further, the first House of Assembly included eight representatives from anti-self-government parties: No Self-Government, the Abolish Self-Government Coalition, and the Residents Rally Party. It took almost two months to finalise the counting of votes, and the final result was a minority Labor government led by Chief Minister Rosemary Follett.

Needless to say, those Members elected on no self-government or abolish self-government platforms, went on to take their seats in the Assembly.

While Follett’s government managed to navigate the first tentative steps of government, a key player in the transition to self-government was William Harris, the secretary of the Chief Minister’s Department. Harris was the architect of the ACT’s first budget, a ‘task that involved identifying all federal government spending on the territory by dozens of departments and agencies, and then overseeing the design and establishment of a purpose-made public service to operate at both state and municipal levels’.^[9] Over time, the ACT has managed to navigate autonomy well, consolidating its administrative functions and moving to a more stable electoral system.

Until the 2016 election, the Assembly had 17 members elected from three electorates: Molonglo, Ginninderra, and Brindabella. In 2013, ACT Electoral Commissioner Philip Green held a review of the size of the Assembly. This was motivated by the expanding population, and because the ministerial responsibilities of minority government members had expanded, reducing the degree to which ministers could undertake all their duties. The report recommended that:

• the ACT Legislative Assembly be increased to 25 members at the 2016 election, with five electorates each returning five members;
• the Assembly be increased to 35 members at the 2020 election, with five electorates each returning seven members.^[10]

The government accepted the first recommendation, and, in 2015, a redistribution of electoral boundaries was held, increasing the number of electorates to five, each electing five members.^[11] Each election the boundaries may change slightly under section 36 of the Electoral Act and section 67D of the Commonwealth Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 to ensure that as nearly as practicable, each ACT electorate gains representation in the ACT Legislative Assembly in proportion to the electorate’s voting population; or in simplistic terms that the numbers in each electorate remain similar, taking into account population growth areas and projections.

While there is occasional discussion of expanding the Assembly to the recommended 35 members, this did not take place at the 2020 or 2024 elections and is generally not seen as electorally popular. Apart from other considerations, on a practical level the current building may not be sufficient for an expanded Assembly and building or retrofitting a new Assembly may be expensive.

Electoral system

The ACT’s electoral system is not prescribed by the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 (Cwth) that serves as the territory’s constitution, but is largely determined by the ACT itself through its own legislation, specifically the Electoral Act 1992 (ACT).

The Australian Constitution says very little about the territories. Section 122 gives the Commonwealth Parliament power to ‘make laws for the government of any territory,’ but it does not mandate any particular electoral or governmental system for territories.

When the ACT gained self-government in 1989 through the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 (Commonwealth), this federal legislation established:

• That there would be a Legislative Assembly;
• Some basic structural requirements;
• The relationship between the territory and Commonwealth.

However, the Commonwealth Act gave the ACT Legislative Assembly the power to make its own electoral laws. The ACT then enacted its own Electoral Act 1992, which established:

• The Hare-Clark proportional representation system;
• A number of multi-member electorates (currently 5, with 5 members each, for 25 total);
• Specific electoral procedures and requirements.

An important caveat is that while the ACT controls most aspects of its electoral system, the Commonwealth Parliament retains ultimate authority under Section 122 and could theoretically override ACT electoral laws or impose requirements. This has happened in other policy areas (see policy issue examples below) but is politically sensitive.

So, in practice, the ACT determines its own electoral system, but it does so under powers delegated by Commonwealth legislation rather than constitutional entrenchment like the states enjoy.

The modified d’Hondt system under which the first Assembly was elected was superseded by the Hare–Clark system. The Hare–Clark system was named after the two people who created it. Sir Thomas Hare was an English lawyer who designed the system in 1859 to address distortions inherent in the single-member plurality system that operated in the UK (and still operates here today). Andrew Inglis Clark was a Tasmanian politician who made some changes to the system to suit Tasmania where it was first employed in 1897.

The Hare–Clark system is also used to elect the Tasmanian lower house today, and is a proportional representation system using a single transferable vote (STV), where the vote transfers from candidate to candidate according to the preferences of the voter. In a five-member electorate, voters must number a minimum of five squares on the ballot paper. The ballot form itself follows the Robson rotation system, meaning that the candidates’ names in the party lists on the ballot form are rotated so no single candidate is listed at the top of every form.

The 2024 election – the third held with the extended Assembly of 25 members – returned ten Labor members, nine Liberals, four Greens, and two independents.

Labor formed government for a seventh consecutive term, and independents returned to the Assembly for the first time in more than quarter of a century. After serving several terms in a governing agreement with Labor, the Greens opted to sit on the crossbench although they offered confidence, supply, and support for Andrew Barr as chief minister in exchange for the adoption of a number of Greens policies.

In the campaign leading up the 2024 election, Labor focused on its record in government, including shepherding the territory through the Covid-19 pandemic. The Liberals campaigned strongly on cost-of-living issues and responsible financial management, and all parties campaigned on housing affordability. Labor’s win in 2024 means the party will have been in office for 27 continuous years at the next election (2028) but are under additional pressure with the Greens effectively in Opposition.

Intergovernmental relations

Commonwealth–ACT relations

The Australian Constitution is unambiguous in handing the right to make laws for the territories to the Commonwealth:

The Parliament may make laws for the government of any territory surrendered by any State to and accepted by the Commonwealth, or of any territory placed by the Queen under the authority of and accepted by the Commonwealth, or otherwise acquired by the Commonwealth, and may allow the representation of such territory in either House of the Parliament to the extent and on the terms which it thinks fit.^[12]

In other words, the federal government holds supreme power over territories, as they lack a constitution and have their law-making abilities granted by the federal parliament, which can override territory laws. While both territories and states have power over services like schools and hospitals, states’ powers are protected by the constitution, whereas territories’ are not. This results in a legal subordination for territories, even though the ACT and Northern Territory  have parliamentary systems with similar day-to-day responsibilities to states.

The ACT’s small representation in the national parliament and progressiveness in pursuit of public policy, however, means that it has had a complex and often fraught relationship with more conservative federal governments due to the subordinate position of territories in Australian federalism.

Self-government allowed the ACT to participate in Australia’s system of intergovernmental relations, through inclusion in the peak intergovernmental relations body, previously the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) and now National Cabinet.^[13] But the ACT suffers from ‘co-location’, being both Canberra-as-national-capital and Canberra-as-distinctive-entity in its own right.^[14]

Upon self-government, the National Capital Development Commission was superseded by the National Capital Authority (NCA). The NCA is the federal body responsible for the planning and management of national capital areas and places of national significance, the preservation of the Burley Griffin plan for the city and the maintenance of the historical integrity of the capital while nowadays the ACT Government handles everyday planning and development across the rest of the territory. The NCA has a veto power over development in key areas like central Canberra, ensuring they align with the National Capital Plan, whereas the ACT Government manages day-to-day development across all territory land, subject to the NCA’s broader oversight on specific matters.

Complicating the relationship between the ACT and federal governments is the fact that the Parliamentary Triangle comes under federal control. This area (the apex of which is Parliament House, and which is bounded by Commonwealth and Kings Avenues and the northern shore of Lake Burley Griffin) contains Old and New Parliament House, the National Library, Science Centre, Art Gallery and Archives, the High Court and several major public service buildings (including Treasury). It is positioned close to the centre of the city, which has considerable implications for territory planning. The ACT government has no authority within the triangle, with the exception of the delivery of municipal services. This relationship and associated restrictions are especially challenging for the ACT Government in planning infrastructure projects such as the light rail.

ACT–NSW relations

NSW completely surrounds the ACT. As such, the ACT must retain working relations with NSW for a variety of cross-boundary issues (Canberra is increasingly a conurbation that includes the town of Queanbeyan in NSW). As the largest metropolitan area in its region, Canberrans also see large numbers of people from the surrounding state using its services, such as health and hospital services.

In 2023 and on previous occasions including 2020, 2016 and 2011, the two districts signed a Memorandum of Understanding on Regional Collaboration to provide a structure for ‘the joint development and implementation of policy (including co-operative consultation with stakeholders) for the region. acknowledge the importance of collaborating to improve access to services, build community resilience and develop the economies of cross-border communities.’ ^[15]

Policy issues of salience in the ACT

With a highly educated and comparatively wealthy population,^[16] the ACT is generally held to be socially progressive.^[17] It was the first state or territory to elect an openly LGBTI head of government (Andrew Barr) and the first Australian legislature to have a majority of women members (both in 2016). It has led the way in recognising same-sex partnerships, support for The Voice referendum, waste minimisation policies, and renewable energy initiatives.

Greens members have been elected to the ACT parliament consistently since 1995. Except for one term (2004–08), the ACT has always had minority governments, dependent upon minor parties and independents for support in the Legislative Assembly to pass legislation and retain confidence. While tending to support Labor in government, the presence of the Greens has been significant in promoting socially and environmentally progressive policies, reflecting the ACT Greens’ origins in wider social justice issues.^[18]

Three policy areas illustrate this tension between the territory’s self-government and the federal government: two recently resolved, and one relating to ongoing discussions on the construction of light rail through Commonwealth land.

Same-sex marriage and civil unions

In March 2006, the ACT proposed the Civil Unions Bill 2006, which would have established civil unions for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. The bill explicitly stated that civil unions were ‘different to a marriage’ but would be ‘treated for all purposes under territory law in the same way as a marriage.’

The ACT Legislative Assembly passed the bill on May 11, 2006, and it commenced on June 9, 2006. However, Commonwealth Attorney-General immediately opposed it, and on June 13, 2006, the federal government used its powers under the ACT Self-Government Act to have the Governor-General disallow the Act.

The federal parliament, fearing that the ACT’s legislation was a step towards legalising same-sex marriage, amended the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) so that the definition of ‘marriage’ changed from ‘a union between two consenting adults’ to ‘a union between one man and one woman’.

In 2013, under Chief Minister Katy Gallagher, the ACT passed the Marriage Equality Bill 2013 (ACT) in defiance of the Commonwealth.^[19] At the time, the chief minister stated that:

We would prefer to see the federal parliament legislate for a nationally consistent scheme, but in the absence of this we will act for the people of the ACT. The Marriage Equality Bill 2013 will enable couples who are not able to marry under the Commonwealth Marriage Act 1961 to enter into marriage in the ACT. It will provide for solemnisation, eligibility, dissolution and annulment, regulatory requirements and notice of intention in relation to same-sex marriages.^[20]

Attorney-General George Brandis announced that the Commonwealth would appeal in the High Court to have the legislation overturned, but the ACT’s Act came into force on 7 December 2013. More than 30 couples immediately married under the new law before, a week later, the High Court ruled in the Commonwealth’s favour on the grounds that the ACT law contradicted the federal marriage legislation and was therefore unconstitutional. It is important to note that in this particular case, the ACT law was not struck down because of the ACT’s special territorial status (Section 122), but rather under the same constitutional principle (Section 109) that would equally apply to invalidate any state law that conflicted with Commonwealth legislation.

While this ended the progressive experiment in same-sex marriage, the conflict did much to put the issue on the national agenda and placed pressure on successive national governments to expand access to marriage. This culminated in a national postal survey in 2017 where Australians voted in favour of marriage equality, and on 9 December 2017, the right to marry in Australia was no longer determined by sex or gender. The Marriage Act 1961 was updated to allow for marriage equality. The Act defines marriage as ‘the union of 2 people to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life’.^[21]

The right to die: euthanasia or voluntary assisted dying (VAD)

The NT paved the way for euthanasia laws in 1995, when it became the first Australian jurisdiction to legalise assisted suicide for the terminally ill. The ACT was set to follow suit until, in 1997, the Commonwealth passed legislation overriding any move by either territory to pass euthanasia laws.

In December 2015, Liberal Democrat Senator David Leyonhjelm proposed the Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015 (Cth), with senators of all parties being given a conscience vote. The purpose of the Bill was to repeal the Commonwealth’s prohibition on the territories legislating for assisted suicide. Leyonhjelm was an outspoken supporter of both the rights of the territories to determine their own laws, and the rights of the terminally ill to choose to die. The debate, therefore, was as much about territory rights as it was the rights of the terminally ill.

The Bill went to a vote on 14 August 2018. The Bill was expected to pass the Senate with a narrow margin; however, last minute lobbying on the part of those opposed to the Bill changed the votes of enough senators to see it defeated by two votes.

After the failure of that Bill to pass, in September 2018, the ACT and NT Speakers presented letters of remonstrance from the ACT and NT parliaments to the Senate President Hon. Scott Ryan. A remonstrance is the most serious protest available to a parliament and this is the only one agreed to in the ACT Legislative Assembly’s history to date after a motion to remonstrate the Senate was debated and agreed to earlier in August.^[22]

This was part of the ACT Legislative Assembly’s lobbying of the federal government to restore its territory rights which blocked it from legislating on VAD. The federal Restoring Territory Rights Act 2022, which passed through the Australian Parliament in December 2022, finally ended the ban on territories making their own VAD laws. Following this, the ACT Government introduced its own VAD Bill in October 2023, allowing Canberrans to potentially choose VAD. This means that all six states and the ACT have passed their own VAD legislation, and the ACT’s law came into effect on November 3, 2025.^[23]

Conclusions

Given the demographics and political inclination of the ACT’s population, it is likely that the ACT government will remain progressive in its policy outlook.

The government of the ACT is in a unique position, having jurisdictional authority over the territory wherein resides the federal government. It faces a number of challenges: administering a territory whose core ‘industries’ are government and (predominantly publicly funded) education; providing municipal services for a rapidly growing city; providing health, education and public transport services for a growing population; maintaining a healthy and productive relationship with the NSW government and the local government authorities of the ‘Australian Capital Region’; and maintaining both its character and integrity while forging a good working relationship with the federal government, regardless of which political party is in power.

References

About the author

Dr Robin Tennant-Wood lectured in political science and public policy at the University of Canberra and, prior to that, worked in public policy development in the Australian public service and worked in the community sector as executive director of a nongovernment organisation. She has written and taught on Australian politics and electoral politics, in particular, the politics and government of the ACT. Dr Tennant-Wood has also been a journalist for Fairfax at the Braidwood Times and currently researches and writes independently.

Nicole Lawder is a researcher in political science at the Australian National University and was a three-times elected Member for Brindabella in the ACT Legislative Assembly. Prior to her terms in office, she worked in the public, private and for-purpose sectors including homelessness and disability.