The Journey to Self-Government in the Australian Capital Territory

The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) is geographically small but politically mighty, serving as the seat of the Commonwealth government in Canberra. Unlike Australia’s states, which achieved responsible government in the 19th century, the ACT’s path to self-government was a long, deliberate process that unfolded over more than seven decades. This article traces the territory’s evolution from a federally administered district to a fully self-governing jurisdiction with its own legislative assembly and executive.

Early Governance: A Territory Under Federal Control

Creation of the ACT (1911–1930)

The ACT was established in 1911 when the Commonwealth government acquired land from New South Wales to build the national capital. Under Section 122 of the Australian Constitution, the Parliament of Australia had full power to make laws for any territory. For the first 70 years, residents of the ACT were effectively disenfranchised at the local level. The federal government, primarily through the Minister for Territories and the Department of the Interior, administered all local services—roads, health, education, and planning—without any elected local body.

An advisory council, the Canberra Community Council, was created in 1927 but had no legislative or financial authority. It could only make recommendations. The official administrator of the ACT, appointed by the federal minister, wielded real power. This arrangement left residents feeling like second-class citizens compared to Australians living in states.

The Advisory Council Era (1930–1970s)

From 1930 onward, the federal government attempted to introduce limited local representation. In 1930, a Canberra Citizens’ Representative Council was established, but it was purely consultative. Over the decades, several commissions and reports recommended some form of local government. A notable attempt was the creation of the ACT Advisory Council in 1947, which allowed elected members to advise the minister. However, the minister retained veto power over all decisions. This half-measure frustrated residents and local business groups, who increasingly demanded a proper democratic structure.

By the 1950s, Canberra’s population had grown to over 30,000, and the lack of local decision-making became impossible to ignore. The federal government’s control extended to trivial matters—parking fines, library hours, and even the price of milk. Residents had no say in the budget or in major planning decisions for their city. The stage was set for a serious push toward self-government.

The Push for Self-Government (1970–1988)

Growing Political Pressure

In the early 1970s, a coalition of community groups, the Canberra Times, and several federal politicians began advocating for a locally elected assembly. The Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory was established in 1973 to inquire into the governance of the territory. Its 1974 report recommended the creation of a fully elected legislative assembly with limited powers. The Whitlam government accepted the recommendation in principle and introduced the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1975, but the bill lapsed when the government was dismissed in November 1975.

Under the Fraser government, progress stalled. Instead, the government created the Canberra Civic and Administrative Council in 1978, a largely symbolic body with no real authority. Residents staged public meetings and petitions, demanding the same rights as state voters.

The 1978 Referendum

In 1978, the federal government held a referendum in the ACT on self-government. Voters were asked to choose from three options: full self-government, representation in the federal parliament (like a state), or maintaining the current arrangement. The results surprised many: 63.8% voted for representation in the federal parliament, 23.2% for full self-government, and 12.8% for the status quo. The Commonwealth interpreted this as a rejection of self-government, but proponents argued that the referendum was poorly designed and that many residents misunderstood the consequences. The referendum did not produce a binding outcome, and the federal government continued to administer the territory, albeit with increasing public dissatisfaction.

Throughout the 1980s, the push for self-government regained momentum. A group of local politicians, including future Chief Minister Rosemary Follett, formed the ACT Self-Government Association. They argued that the referendum result was a protest against the model proposed, not against self-government itself. Federal Labor leaders, including Bob Hawke and Gareth Evans, promised to revisit the issue.

The Path to the Canberra Act 1988

In 1987, the federal government released a discussion paper, “Self-Government for the Australian Capital Territory: A New Era,” outlining a model for a unicameral legislative assembly with law-making powers similar to those of state parliaments. After extensive consultation, the Canberra Act 1988 was passed by the Commonwealth Parliament and received royal assent on 6 December 1988. The Act came into effect on 1 January 1989, making the ACT a self-governing territory.

Key provisions of the Act included the creation of a 17-member Legislative Assembly elected by proportional representation, a Chief Minister chosen by the Assembly, and the devolution of most state-type functions—health, education, police, housing, and planning—to the territory government. However, the Commonwealth retained control of certain matters, including the national capital planning authority and the Australian Federal Police (though police functions were later transferred). The Act also gave the federal government the power to disallow any ACT law within six months, a provision that remains controversially in place today.

First Elections and the Early Years (1989–1995)

The Historic 1989 Election

The first ACT Legislative Assembly election was held on 4 March 1989. Eighteen parties and independent candidates contested the 17 seats, reflecting the diverse political landscape. The result was fragmented: the Liberal Party won 5 seats, the Labor Party 5, the Residents Rally 4, the No Self-Government Party 1, the Abolish Self-Government Party 1, and one independent. The No Self-Government Party had campaigned on a platform of returning administration to the federal government, a startling irony given that the election was for a self-governing assembly.

Labor formed a minority government with the support of the Residents Rally. Rosemary Follett (Labor) became the first Chief Minister of the ACT, and also the first female head of government in any Australian jurisdiction. The first Assembly faced severe challenges: a $50 million budget deficit, a lack of experienced public servants, and public skepticism. Many residents still believed self-government had been foisted on them.

Early Governance Struggles

The first term (1989–1992) was chaotic. The Assembly was divided, with many members new to politics. The Abolish Self-Government Party and No Self-Government Party frequently disrupted proceedings. In 1991, the Assembly passed a motion requesting the federal government to take back responsibility for the territory, but Canberra did not agree. A 1992 referendum asked residents if they wanted to retain self-government; 57.4% voted “yes”, settling the question decisively.

The second election in 1992 produced a more stable outcome. Labor won 8 seats, the Liberals 7, and independents 2. Follett again became Chief Minister, and the government focused on building institutional capacity. The Assembly established committees, passed a budget, and began delivering services. Gradually, the ACT government gained legitimacy in the eyes of its citizens.

Evolution of Self-Government (1995–Present)

Amendments to the Canberra Act

Over the years, the Canberra Act has been amended several times to adjust the powers and structure of the ACT government. In 1994, the Commonwealth transferred responsibility for courts and tribunals. In 1996, the Assembly was increased from 17 to 25 members (later reduced to 25 and now 25). In 2010, the Assembly received full power over policing and corrective services, though the Australian Federal Police still operate under a service agreement.

One of the most significant changes came in 2011, when the federal government granted the ACT the power to legislate on same-sex marriage, though the High Court later struck down the ACT’s law in 2013 because it conflicted with the federal Marriage Act. This incident highlighted the limits of territorial legislative power.

The Chief Minister and Executive

The ACT executive is unique. Unlike states, where the governor represents the Crown, the ACT has an Administrator appointed by the Governor-General. The Chief Minister is the head of government, appointed by the Assembly, and leads a cabinet of ministers. The Assembly operates under a unicameral system—there is no upper house. This makes the ACT the only Australian jurisdiction other than Queensland without a bicameral parliament.

The electoral system uses the Hare-Clark proportional representation method, which tends to produce multi-party assemblies and minority governments. As a result, the ACT has frequently seen Labor governments reliant on the support of the Greens or independents. This has led to stable but often negotiated policymaking, particularly around climate action, social policy, and urban planning.

Current Powers and Autonomy

Today, the ACT Legislative Assembly passes laws on matters including health, education, transport, planning, police, housing, environment, and public utilities. The territory has its own public service, the ACT Public Service, which manages service delivery. The ACT also has its own court system—the Supreme Court and Magistrates Court—though the High Court of Australia retains ultimate appellate jurisdiction.

One notable limitation remains: the Commonwealth can still disallow any ACT law within six months of it being passed. This power has been used sparingly—most recently in 2006 when the federal government vetoed an ACT law on civil unions. The ability to disallow laws has been a subject of ongoing debate, with many arguing it undermines the territory’s autonomy. A 2021 parliamentary inquiry recommended the repeal of the disallowance power, but the federal government has not acted on it.

Unique Aspects of ACT Self-Government

The ACT is the only territory in Australia without a system of local government. Municipal functions—rubbish collection, local roads, parks, libraries—are performed by the ACT government through the Transport Canberra and City Services directorate. This unitary structure simplifies administration but concentrates power in the Legislative Assembly.

Canberra’s role as the national capital imposes additional constraints. The National Capital Authority, a federal body, retains jurisdiction over the Parliamentary Triangle and other iconic areas. All development proposals must be consistent with the National Capital Plan. These arrangements ensure that the federal government’s interests in the symbolic heart of the capital are protected.

For further reading, see the official history of the ACT Legislative Assembly (link: History of the Assembly), the Australian Parliamentary Education Office’s explainer on territories (link: Government in the Territories), and a detailed scholarly analysis of the 1978 referendum (link: APH Library paper).

Conclusion: A Maturing Democracy

The history of the ACT’s self-government is a story of persistent advocacy, political compromise, and institutional growth. From a federally administered district to a dynamic self-governing territory, the journey reflects the desire of Canberra’s residents to shape their own future. While limitations remain—most notably the Commonwealth’s disallowance power—the ACT now enjoys a level of autonomy comparable to that of the states in many areas. The Legislative Assembly has become a robust arena for debate, and successive governments have developed distinctive policies on issues from environmental sustainability to human rights.

As the ACT approaches its 35th anniversary of self-government, the debate over its constitutional status continues. Some advocate for full statehood, while others push for the removal of federal veto powers. Whatever the future holds, the territory has proven that even the smallest political unit can carve out a meaningful identity within the Australian federation.