Bold claim: Greens accuse ACT Labor of deep-seated incompetence and manipulation, underscoring a rift that could redefine Canberra politics. But here’s where it gets controversial: does the Greens’ critique reflect genuine governance failures, or a strategic power play ahead of elections?
The Greens are taking aim at Labor ministers, with their leader describing a Labor minister as “frankly close to incompetent” and the deputy leader suggesting three ministers might be better off outside the cabinet. The party also criticizes Chief Minister Andrew Barr for letting Deputy Chief Minister Yvette Berry remain in cabinet two and a half years after Berry testified to an Integrity Commission probe.
Four Greens MPs faced their colleagues in late January after revelations they’d been engaging in high-level talks with the Canberra Liberals about removing the Labor government. Greens leader Shane Rattenbury singled out Climate Change Minister Suzanne Orr as “frankly close to incompetent,” citing delays in releasing a climate strategy for public consultation. That remark came before Orr published a draft strategy for public input, prompting Canberra Times to ask whether Rattenbury stood by his accusation; the Greens did not provide a direct reply.
Jo Clay, the Greens’ deputy leader, warned that developers and the horse racing industry had influenced ministerial decisions, raising concerns about possible corruption and interference in parliamentary committees. Rattenbury pointed out that Barr had allowed Berry to stay in office while she’s been a subject of an Integrity Commission inquiry stemming from her former chief of staff’s handling of a primary school expansion tender. Berry testified publicly in 2023, during a Greens cabinet presence.
The Canberra Times pressed the Greens on whether they raised concerns about Berry remaining in cabinet before the 2024 election or during post-election discussions when Greens were offered ministerial roles. A party spokesperson avoided specifics, saying the Greens faced a difficult balance between holding Labor to account and ensuring Canberra had a functioning government. The spokesperson added that the MLAs briefed members about key concerns, new information, and community sentiment.
Historically, Rattenbury served in cabinet with ACT Labor from 2012 to 2024, and the Greens later entered a supply-and-confidence agreement with Labor following the 2024 arrangement, after declining a cabinet re-entry offer. The Greens have criticized Labor’s handling of post-election talks, accusing the government of withholding budget details and failing to fund Greens’ commitments.
Clay noted the party had considered no-confidence motions against several ministers, albeit with trepidation. The Greens argued that a fractured Labor Party had kept the Greens from voting with the Liberals to oust ministers. While avoiding naming names, Clay suggested three ministers probably deserve removal, hinting that a forthcoming corruption report could land within weeks. The party also pointed to Labor’s failure to push motions in the Legislative Assembly and to aggressively pursue Commonwealth funding opportunities as further concerns.
When pressed on which funding sources ACT could have pursued, the Greens cited a perceived lack of zeal in lobbying federal counterparts and a passive approach to funding rounds like the Housing Australia Future Fund.
What’s at stake isn’t just personalities or a budget spat. It’s about accountability, integrity, and whether a minority partnership can effectively govern. Should the Greens’ warnings be treated as legitimate governance critiques or as a maneuver to leverage power in a high-stakes political environment? Share your view in the comments: Do you think the Greens are responsibly holding Labor to account, or are they undermining a functioning government for political gain?
Clearly, the fallout will hinge on forthcoming reports, budget disclosures, and howLabor responds to scrutiny from a party that has not shied away from bold, confrontational tactics.
