Why we should only guarantee a minimum 18-month term
|
Whoever secures an extremely fragile minority government in the coming days will have an incentive to perform sensibly for a few months and then dash to an early election once the polls improve. For Prime Minister Tony Abbott that would probably only take a few weeks given the bad blood that would be unleashed if the Rudd-Gillard government ended up in office for less time than Gough Whitlam. Acting out of self-interest, the three rural independents are pushing for both sides to commit to a full three-year term to preserve their power and time in the sun. Neither of these scenarios are satisfactory and there is a middle ground that ought to be pursued. For starters, the country needs to sample what life will be like with a hard-left party exclusively holding the balance of power in the Senate. The Greens don’t take over until July 1 next year. We’ve also just experienced the largest state government impact on a federal election since Labor lost nine seats in Victoria at the 1990 federal election thanks to the faltering Cain Labor government. The people of Queensland and NSW should be allowed to unleash their anger at state Labor governments before being asked to reflect again on who should run the country. Prime ministers and premiers have traditionally worked hard to avoid having over-lapping election campaigns and the Victorian poll on November 27 is only 88 days away. We then have a NSW election on March 26 next year. After that, there is a 12-month gap until the latest possible Queensland state election. However, Anna Bligh is not locked into a fixed three-year after first being popularly elected as Queensland Premier on March 21, 2009. Easter Sunday falls on April 8 in 2012, so the nation should know who is governing Australia three most populous states by the end of March 2012. Surely that would mark an appropriate time for the federal parliament to consider whether minority government is working. If a CEO or a management company has done a lousy job over its initial three-year contract, a board would normally shy away from giving them another three-year commitment. How much is the Essendon Football Club regretting extending the three-year contract of new coach Matthew Knights by only two extra years last year. Given Labor’s lacklustre performance and widespread concerns about Tony Abbott, why should either side secure a three-year deal? The nation is thoroughly sick of election campaigning and don’t deserve to foot the bill for another $100 million-plus taxpayer-funded extravaganza to resolve the deadlock. At least, not in the short term. But given three years is a long time, why on earth should Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott sign away their rights to call an early election if it proves impossible to deliver stable and effective government? This is a situation where the two major parties should get together and make the following offer to each other, the Greens and the independents: Supply will be guaranteed for the 2011-12 Budget to be debated and approved in May next year. No major party will move or support a no confidence motion in the government before April 30, 2012. After that, all bets are off, but the one caveat should be that any early election is a double dissolution. This would provide an extra check on the six Green senators who have just been elected and wouldn’t fancy going back to the polls less than a year into their six-year terms. Similarly, if an opposition was deemed to have recklessly brought down a government, it would risk seeing a re-elected government secure control of both houses. In effect, such an agreement would guarantee at least 18 months of minority government, by which time all of the governance and parliamentary reforms to clean up politics should be bedded down. Then we could have a federal election that wasn’t polluted by state government issues and it would feature a cleaned up system of political donations, truth in advertising, campaign debates and campaign costings. The public would also have a much better feel for Gillard and Abbott in their respective positions, plus it would have real experience of the Greens with balance of power in the Senate. Rob, Tony, Andrew, Adam and Bob. How about it? |
|
|
|
18 Comments
If Abbot DOES wins…there will be bloodletting between the Libs, the Nats and independents …especially with Katter and the Nats…they will surely be at loggerheads over something; (and will they be able to work with the Greens in the Senate in 2011?)
If Abbott DOESN’T win there will be bloodletting;
If Labor DOESN’T win there will be bloodletting…
If Labor DOES win there will only be a little bit of blood letting because they have already done most of theirs! (and they will no doubt be able to work with the Greens in the Senate)
So seems to me that if we want a stable Govt as much as we can hope for…it will be Labor.
(PS I think Abbott is getting just a little bit too cocky stating they are a “Govt in waiting” - egotistical and the right to rule attitude reigns supreme)
This contorted logic is really an indication that we need 4 year fixed terms. The UK election this year did not hand anyone a majority. It was even more decisively indecisive than ours (not just a few seats short). Yet the resulting coalition of unlikely partners has managed quite well so far, even with a big cutting budget. They awarded themselves a fixed 5 year term and there has not been much wailing about that. Because this type of election outcome indicates people just want governments to knuckle down and do some governing.
Of course no amount of gentlemen’s agreements can stop the dissolution of parliament and a new election if things go to hell (as assuredly they would in an Abbott government; one reason we should not necessarily fear it).
And did Stephen Mayne not see those 5 Premiers (2 Libs, 3 Lab) of past and present hung parliaments positively gushing with reassurance that they worked quite well.
Gillard and Labor may well perform better under these circumstances, and I for one wish to see a serious period of stable actual functioning, not electioneering, governance.
Agree Michael…fixed four or five year terms in BOTH houses…and both in line with the same election cycle - that way we wont ever have to put up with another Fielding.
One of the strengths of our system is that terms are not fixed.
I like the fact that a failing head of government, such as Kevin Rudd, can be removed by his own party. I like that a failing government can also be dismissed or that a government that thinks its policies are worth pursuing but that lacks a majority in both houses can take this to the people for a fresh election.
What I don’t like is anything that smacks of the American system. That system allowed the execrable Bush to remain as head of government (and, of course, head of state) for far longer than someone of his calibre would (presumably) have lasted under the Westminster system.
I think that the fact that the Three Stooges are pushing for fixed terms just shows that they really have no idea of how our system (as opposed to the American system) actually works.
The USA didn’t have to keep Bush for eight years - they could have voted him out after four…in fact…I think they did!!!!!
I agree with Michael and Denise on fixed terms for both houses, and I add that all elections should be held on a specified day every 4/5 years, say the first Saturday in November.
I disagree with much else of Mayne’s piece. The Greens appear to be a ‘hard-left party’ only to some one on the far right. For a start, the Greens do not support nationalising the means of production and distribution, which surely must be the first policy of any socialist.
Neither do I see how a double dissolution would discipline the Greens or any other minor party or independent seeking Senate representation. Surely the Greens would be advantaged by a double dissolution which lowers the quota needed for a seat, which seems likely to result in the Greens increasing their Senate seats substantially since they seem to be on a roll.
I think the arguments Mayne has suggested for an 18 month term guarantee have some merit. I would prefer fixed term elections but think five years is too long and three too short. Nothing gets up my nose more than someone like Howard grinning like the Cheshire cat equivocating about the election date. The trouble with say a four year term is that the system we have at present would mean an eight year term for a senator which is way too long. Four years for both houses but held separately ?
The more I think about it an 18 month guarantee from all the participants would be a good idea.
The USA has an impeachment process if they want to use it to remove a president.
Yes, Stephen, many Queenslanders are counting the days until we can give the Bligh government their just desserts.
The fact that we will be replacing Bligh & Co with nincompoops is no deterrent to voting them out. In fact one doubts Bligh could be saved even if the LNP was led by Jack The Ripper.
Fixed terms are no panacea for anything - just look at NSW. I’m not quite sure why people seem to think fixed terms are such a great idea.
On the plus side you may get slightly more bang-for-buck in terms of extending terms that might otherwise have been cut short, so slightly fewer elections. You also nominally even the playing field for incumbent vs opposition, not that that actually seems to count for much.
On the negative side, knowing when the election is being held just makes the phoney election campaigns start earlier and go on longer. There is less flexibility to deal with changing circumstances, and as stated above the ability of a government to try to renew their mandate ahead of key reforms is actually an important part of the way our system of government works.
Governments that go to the polls early without justification are generally punished by the electorate anyway; I fail to see the problem.
On Stephen Mayne’s article, I think there are merits to the suggestion that the independents should pin them down only for 18 months vs trying to get a guarantee for a full term. Get some useful life out of this parliament, but I don’t think 3 years is realistic. If it’s all going swimmingly after 18 months then whoever is the government will stick it out, otherwise a fresh election is probably reasonable then anyway.
@JACKOL at 6:14 pm
You haven’t thought through any of your comments or suggestions. The problem with our toxic combination of short terms (max 3 y) and government’s discretion to call an election when they want, is that it makes it almost impossible to have stable government free of the pressure to appeal to special interest groups. If I remember, the average length of government terms in the post-war period is barely 2 years. Do you seriously think this leads to good government?
The problem with fixed 3 y terms is they are in reality reduced to 2 years plus 1 year of electioneering when bribes and short-termism replace policy. Howard was in power for almost 12 years but it still did not give stable periods of sensible policy — even Costello will confirm that because he constantly had to try to stop Howard from wasting massive amounts of cash on blatant bribes in the year before elections.
So fixed 4 year terms in reality may provide 3 years for actual sensible policy implementation. This is probably why the Brits go for 5 year terms (not fixed) so that they get 4 years in which to do things.
One error that Rudd Labor did was to have such long delays before doing anything. After 12 years out of government and little progressive policy making by Howard in that period, there was some sense in having all those reviews. But it did seem to go on and on and on. (and I don’t think a review in renewable energy did anything other than delay those grants for geothermal for 2 years!) I really hope Gillard has learnt that lesson (and the bloody NBN needs to get off signed off in the next 6 months not in another X years! The longer they stretch it out the more likely something will happen to cause it to fall over. Telstra is currently supportive of it. )
Even in the US with fixed 4 y presidential terms they say that the President has barely 12 months, maybe 18 if he is very skilled, in his second term before he is a lame duck. So, even when you are not running again there is a Catch22 to the exercise of power v time.
So, like my criticisms of Mayne’s suggestions, no one can possibly expect good brave policy if there is an election in 18 months. It would just mean inaction. Playing it safe. Except electoral pork. We’d have bacon up the gazzoo. Entirely pointless.
And incidentally Mayne’s “an extra check on the six Green senators who have just been elected” is just straightforward undemocratic (and luckily not constitutional, there are only certain events that can trigger a DD and agreement between parties is not one of them). We have put up with bloody Steve Fielding for the whole 6 years. I want to see what the Greens do in 6 years of balance of power, not 18 months of government paralysis waiting for another election.
Let’s look at what Mayne sees up as the main problem:
“Whoever secures an extremely fragile minority government in the coming days will have an incentive to perform sensibly for a few months and then dash to an early election once the polls improve.”
Rather than concentrating on dealing with that happening, wouldn’t it make more sense for the three rural independents to advise the Governor General they were backing “X” or “Y” as P.M. only on the condition that he/she undertakes to serve the full term. If he/she breaks that undertaking (including claiming “new circumstances” require an early election) in light of the conditions under which the Government was made possible in the first place, it would be expected the Governor General would first enquire whether anyone else now had the confidence of sufficient M.H.Rs to form a Government, and agree to a fresh election only if no one else could achieve the necessary numbers for a fresh Government to survive a confidence vote.
This wouldn’t affect the Governor General’s reserve powers to act differently if she believed there was a genuine reason for the nation to go back to the polls early; but it would restrict the ability of whoever is P.M. to use frivolous grounds in order to go early, simply to take tactical advantage of a Party’s current popularity/unpopularity.
It’s not a panacea for every possible eventuality, but I’d suggest it does provide a much better chance of preventing whoever becomes P.M. rushing off early for no good reason. An early election could still be held IF the majority of the Lower House wanted to have one. It would prevent the P.M. rushing off early ONLY if he/she couldn’t convince the House of Reps it ought to take place
No matter how long or how fixed a term is somebody will work out how to exploit it to best suit themselves.The evidence is everywhere.The only time most of us get a say is when we vote.The longer a government is in power the longer they get to ignore us.
Have ten year terms, with a performance guarantee. It works for football coaches, and maybe we’d think more about who we voted for for that long a term?
I’m not convinced of the benefit of fixed term, four or five year (viz NSW) but believe that 3 years maximum is far too short for national government.
A solution could be something similar to the Danish system whereby a parliamentrary term is fixed but, like most euroland, goverments are always coalitions, the fall of an administration requires the pollies to reform, not unlike slime moulds, because they cannot simply annoy the electorate again & again.
It’s interesting, AR, that so many people see fixed terms as good, but believe NSW somehow illustrates a flaw in the method, without stopping to ask themselves precisely WHAT they think is the negative aspect of the current NSW political scene caused by fixed 4 year terms?
1) In most cases they argue the present Government shouldn’t be able to use its fixed term to avoid facing the electors. Were they to stop and think for even a moment, they’d realise this is palpable nonsense. Right now, even if there wasn’t a fixed term, the State Government still wouldn’t be going to the voters, because they know those voters wouldn’t treat them particularly kindly.
2) While fixed terms, then, are irrelevant when there’s a clearly unpopular Government , because it will avoid going early no matter what system is in play, fixed terms can play a significant role if the Government is less unpopular. As that Government’s standing goes up and down, the Premier can suddenly ‘go to the people’ on a quasi plausible excuse, simply because he/she has a passing advantage in the polls, or because he/she knows problems are about to occur, and it’s smarter to rush off immediately, rather than face the electorate after the bad news arrives. Surely history is too full of these examples for there to be any need to say more on this point?
3) This leaves the question of what happens if a Government genuinely loses the support of its Parliament. The NSW system provides for this more than adequately, so where it’s not possible to form a Government, there are provisions for Parliament to go back to the voters. Fortunately, when John Hatton arranged for the Fixed Term provisions to be drafted, he ensured the wording made it difficult for even the more devious of our politicians to get around the safeguards.
I guess the one thing Hatton clearly couldn’t ensure, was that everyone would understand the ramifications of precisely what his legislation did?
Norm - I agree that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a fixed four year and Hatton (blessed be his memory) provided for an utterly corrupt/incompetent/brain dead government to be dealt with.
As with the federal scene at present, even amongst Crikey commenters, few understand the system.
Over a year ago I proffered a solution for NSW - all Labor MPs with a skerrick of integrity should resign the Whip, sit on the cross benchers and call for a No Confidence vote.
Failing that they could take the Samson Option, resign en bloc and stand as independents. That would require more courage, intelligence and propensity for individual thought than yer akshal apparatchik could recognise, were they to bite him (almost always ‘him’, by definition [Q. why do men rule the world? Ans. coz women have more important things to do]) on his fat’n’shiny rear end.
Under the Westminster system, parties are no more than private clubs, like butterfly collectors. Power resides with whomever “can control the Floor of the House”. End of discussion, it’s that simple.
Don’t be too cynical about politicians, AR. It may be true they were once far more concerned about policies than is the case now; but the change came about not merely because many of them lost their integrity, but also because enough voters wouldn’t stand by a politician who tried to back policies which were in the nation’s overall interest, but unpopular with articulate minorities.
It wasn’t helped by the fact that with the electorate’s growing affluence and self-esteem, more and more people fell prey to a new epidemic which resulted in widespread cases of hubris dressed up as gravitas. It certainly wasn’t helped by the emergence of parties which had the Goldilocks amount of support — - not too little to have no influence, not too much to mean they might really have to carry out their ‘noble’ policies. This can leave them in a not dissimilar position to the harlot — - quite a degree of influence, but absolutely no responsibility. Now I wonder which parties that might describe?
Gosh, it’s sometimes a battle to stop yourself becoming cynical.