The widespread derision being heaped on the New South Wales state government has led many people to bemoan the fact that the next election will not be until March 2011.
A surprisingly large number of people also make a related complaint that this is due to New South Wales having fixed terms, and somehow if there weren’t fixed terms the election could be held earlier and the loathed government could be dispensed with earlier.
Larvatus Prodeo has noted this trend where “the fixed four year term is decried as the fountain of all evil”, with Paul Kelly from The Australian recently saying that “the fixed four-year term model is a fraud on the public interest.”
I would have thought it would be obvious to anyone who has done even the most basic government studies that when there is not a fixed term, the government chooses when to go to an election, not the media or the electorate. Even without a fixed term, the New South Wales government would not be going to an early election if they faced certain defeat.
If a government becomes so decrepit that it loses a vote of confidence in the Parliament, an election could occur. But that is already the case with fixed terms as well.
The widespread frustration against the NSW government is not a case against fixed terms, but it is certainly a case against four year terms – fixed or otherwise. All state governments except Queensland now have four year terms rather than three. I haven’t seen any indication that their performance has improved as a consequence. If anything, I think it just makes them more arrogant, as the scope for accountability is even further reduced.
A research paper has just been released by the federal Parliamentary Library on the issue of fixed terms. It notes that “in recent times many observers have expressed support for an alteration of the Constitution to introduce fixed terms for the House of Representatives. Most also speak in support of altering the maximum House term from three to four years.”
It makes what I think is the very sensible conclusion that a referendum for fixed terms in likely to fail if it also seeks to increase the term of a government from three to four years.
If dissatisfaction over the New South Wales government is going to lead to consideration of reform on term lengths, I think we should look at moving back to three year terms for state governments, rather than undoing the beneficial move of having certainty about election dates.
5 Comments
Do you reckon we could see a pushback towards states returning to three-year terms? Probably not, because politicians wouldn’t want it, and there isn’t much of a political movement, but I have no doubt that the country now would prefer three-year terms rather than four.
Unfortunately (and sometimes fortunately) I don’t think what the country wants plays a large part in the political deliberations of governments most of the time when it comes to electoral reform.
An interesting part of the Federal Government’s plans to reform the electoral process is the idea floated by Senator Faulkner to have the entire Senate elected at each election. I think there’s a good case to be made for that, but that the chances of that happening are extremely slim.
Another idea I saw floated in the papers recently was the idea of having regular Constitutional Conventions (perhaps yearly) to discuss Constitutional change. I think this would allow good ideas for Constitutional change to be put forward and debated on the national stage at a regular basis. I think there’s a number of areas that Government’s really need to be pushed on in that front.
One possibility would be petition recall like they have in America so that Parliament could be dissolved if was too unpopular (like NSW) without having politician determined election dates and this may be the way to get Federal four year terms up at a referendum.
Oh god no. Then you’d have the Daily Telegraph deciding when the election was.
Government’s get elected even if they make stupid decisions from the perspective of some (Or even most) we have to deal with them. If they are “too unpopular” they will lose the election.
I live in NSW and I struggle to find anything good to say about the Government but I don’t think it’s the Zimbabwe-esque basket case both the Telegraph and the Herald are making it out to be. We’ll tough out poor decisions, go to the polls in a few years, elect the Coalition and the degradation of services will continue.
The circle of life.
Does there need to be a referendum to make federal elections fixed?
I thought that could be done by amending the electoral act. It is the change to four year terms that would require a section 128 referendum.