“The Canberra Liberals have reached the point where ideology must finally concede to pragmatism. They can achieve nothing in permanent opposition,” writes GWYN REES.

The speculation around cross-party discussions between the Canberra Liberals and the Greens is quietly ironic.

Barely more than a year ago, it was Liberal Leader Elizabeth Lee’s willingness post-election to talk seriously with the Greens that helped cost her the leadership.

That outreach, framed internally as a breach of ideological discipline, was treated as reckless, even disloyal. She was replaced by Leanne Castley, a move widely interpreted as a retreat to factional comfort rather than a step toward electoral relevance.

Fast forward to early 2026 and the conversation has returned, this time under Mark Parton. The same idea that helped unseat Lee is now being cautiously repackaged as “cross-party collaboration” and “pragmatism”. The irony is difficult to ignore. What was once heresy is suddenly strategy.

And let’s be honest: the Canberra Liberals have reached the point where ideology must finally concede to pragmatism. They can achieve nothing in permanent opposition.

Twenty-four years is also a very long time for any government to hold power. At that scale, longevity moves beyond stability and becomes a liability. Bureaucracies empire-build and harden. Systems begin to serve the government rather than the community. Institutional culture shifts from delivery to self-protection, and accountability weakens.

Canberra offers no shortage of examples. The ACT government’s failed HR system cost taxpayers $78 million before being abandoned, a textbook case of what happens when scrutiny is absent and consequences are not enforced. The health portfolio tells a similar story: escalating costs, chronic access problems, and outcomes that stubbornly refuse to match the rhetoric or the spend. Promised surpluses, floated as part of the shift to a land-based tax regime, never materialised. Rates continue their stratospheric rise, with new levies added for whatever pinch point comes to mind, yet fiscal discipline remains elusive.

And to be frank, this is what happens when a government becomes permanent. No refresh means no threat, and no threat means no real re-evaluation.

Against that backdrop, renewed talk of Greens-Liberals co-operation should be assessed less as a power play and more as a potential circuit-breaker. 

The case for collaboration is not about forming a comfortable long-term government. It is about doing the uncomfortable work that entrenched governments rarely do to themselves.

If there is a role for the Greens, who hold the balance of power and have already signalled they would not prop up another four years of managed decline, it is to force a reset from the crossbench. A short, disciplined arrangement with the Liberals, explicitly limited in scope, could focus on one core task: an extensive, independent audit of the ACT’s finances, agencies, and major programs. Not a cosmetic review, but a genuine, line-by-line examination of what works, what doesn’t, and where money is being absorbed without measurable benefit.

Such an audit would not require ideological alignment. It would require agreement on a single proposition: after 24 years, the system needs sunlight.

This is where the irony sharpens further. Lee’s original willingness to engage the Greens was arguably the most strategically realistic move the Canberra Liberals have made in years. It signalled adaptability, a recognition of Canberra’s political culture, and an understanding that governing this city requires more than shouting “Labor bad” or “Labor tired” from opposition. Yet that instinct was punished internally, only to resurface almost immediately once the leadership deckchairs were rearranged.

Meanwhile, ACT Labor continues to benefit from its opponents’ confusion. Each Liberal spill reinforces the narrative that they are inward-looking and not ready. The Chief Minister Andrew Barr plays this masterfully, allowing his government to govern by inertia rather than inspiration.

And then there’s the tantalising personal symmetry. Shane Rattenbury MLA has been a fixture of ACT politics for a generation. One can’t help but ask: if his political tenure is nearing its natural close, what better way to exit than a brief, historic stint as chief minister? A year focused on stabilisation, transparency and reform. Commission the audit. Reset expectations.

Then hand over to a Liberal-led government heading into an election with a cleared ledger rather than a fiscal fog. A caretaker chief minister for reform. A Greens leader overseeing a reset. Liberals inheriting a map instead of a minefield.

What a shake-up that would be.

At the very least, it would force Canberra politics to confront an uncomfortable truth. Ideological purity is a luxury. Governance is not. And after nearly a quarter of a century, the ACT doesn’t need another recycled argument. It needs pragmatism, accountability, and the courage to admit that permanence is the enemy of performance.

Gwyn Rees is a Canberra-based business advocate.