Do we really need 4 year terms?
Writing in the Courier-Mail last week, Griffith University academic Paul Williams strongly put the case for Queensland to move to four year terms for our state Parliament (and in effect for our state government as well).
I used to also be in favour of shifting to four year, fixed terms at state level as well as at federal level. It does seem to be treated as a given amongst political commentators that it is a good thing, with the only thing stopping it happening being the difficulty of passing a referendum and the partisan positioning amongst the two major parties that often comes with referenda.
However, I have to say in recent years I see less and less benefit in having longer terms between elections for our governments. I hadn’t actually got around to saying so, but the comment by Mark Bahnisch at Larvatus Prodeo that he was “not sure four year terms are all that desirable” prompted me to join in and concur. My basic concern is that I think governments are distant enough from the public as it is. Giving them even less reason to pay attention to what people think doesn’t strike me as a good idea. This is particularly the case in Queensland, which lacks even the minimal protection and scrutiny that an Upper House can provide.
Williams states the arguments in favour:
The most popular among taxpayers is that fewer elections are less of a drain on the public purse. With the cost of elections running into millions of dollars (including the reimbursement of every candidate who scores more than 4 per cent of the primary vote), it’s not an irrelevant point.
Voters and lobby groups, especially business, love the certainty that longer, fixed terms bring. Commerce abhors suspending major investment decisions during any election campaign, let alone waiting for a poll that may, or may not, be called early.
Fixed four-year terms also provide more “governing time”. There’s a grain of truth in the adage that three-year terms offer only the middle year for “real” governance, with the first spent bedding down election promises, and the last campaigning for re-election.
But the last “for” is probably the most compelling — four-year terms will bring Queensland into line with every other state and territory.
I don’t like excessive parochialism, but it doesn’t sound very Queenslandish to say we have to do something because everyone else in Australia is doing it. Especially when it’s hard to see how it’s doing the people of New South Wales any favours at the moment. And I can’t see how having an extra year for the social and individual harm from Workchoices to have been bedded down would have been overly desirable either.
As in other states, we have an ever growing centralisation of power, very narrow concentration of media and an ever growing army of government spin doctors. I can’t see many benefits to the community in giving a government an extra year to do whatever they feel like before they have to try to justify their continuing existence.
In an era of the twenty-four hour (or even shorter) news cycle, the notion that governments need an extra year to be able to implement ‘tough decisions’ is dubious. I’ve also seen little evidence to back the argument that business uncertainty caused by shorter terms harms investment (and in as much as there is any truth, fixed terms would be just as much a solution as longer terms).
Unless we brought in some sort of Californian style recall mechanism – which would be rarely used but useful to have available in an emergency – and restored an Upper House to at least make Parliament slightly independent of the government, I don’t see enough justification for giving Queenslanders even less of a say in who governs us than we do now. Although I do think we should have fixed terms – regardless of whether they are three or four years in length.
21 Comments, Comment or Ping
John Hardy
Good points Andrew though now it makes me wonder why you think fixed terms are necessarily better.
Obviously a fixed term prevents the government from choosing the election date and timing for its own political advantage but conversely it seems to have the benefit of shorter election campaigns.
Fixed terms on the other hand seem to invite extremely long election campaigns and encourage such oddities as the pre-election primaries ritual in the American presidential election. In total the presidential election appears to run for about two years, a full half of the fixed four year term, and during that time the Administration is seen (at least by the media) as essentially being in “lame duck” caretaker mode.
Mar 3rd, 2008
al loomis
i’d be in favor of very long terms of management, if the managers had to put plans and budget before the public as a condition of election. direct election of ministers would do that, to a large extent.
as long as you’re getting a pig in a poke, the shorter the election cycle, the better.
Mar 3rd, 2008
Queenslander
Coupled with the need for an upper house I think it is absolutely necessary. Otherwise it is just another benefit of incumbency. RE upper house- In QLD we currently have a situation where the Criminal Code has been amended to allow ministers to lie with absolute impunity to parliamentary committees. I am sure you would agree that is far from ideal Andrew. Interesting idea with the Californian style recall mechanism.
Mar 3rd, 2008
Queenslander
Andrew,
I’d also like to add that we now see almost the entire year leading up to an election lost to the campaign machine and it effectively becomes a two year term.
Mar 3rd, 2008
Dylan
I would also like to see state elections run in the same year as each other and on off years for the Federal elections. Something like 2010 – Federal, 2012 – States, 2016 – Federal.
Mar 3rd, 2008
Dylan
..and of course I meant 2010 – Federal, 2012 – State, 2014 – Federal.
Mar 3rd, 2008
Raymond Smith
I am not sure about term length, but I think fixed terms are a good idea as they would remove the incumbent’s power to time the election to their own advantage.
Mar 4th, 2008
Guy
Fixed terms are a good thing, but yes, recent experience with governments at both state and federal level does suggest that three year terms might be preferable to four year terms.
Or how about something a little more dynamic; for example, if a government achieves a certain sensibly judged proportion of the two-party preferred vote, it can nominate upon entering office to either serve a three or four year fixed-term.
Mar 4th, 2008
Sam Clifford
Guy, every elected government would surely choose four years over three.
I suggest fixed three year terms federally so that the Senate term can stay at a fixed six year term (eight years is just too long).
We’re also due for a redistribution with some new seats. The last redistribution took us to 60,000 electors per seat and we’re currently at 70,000. This would give us 175 seats and would necessitate an extra two Senators in each state (7 elected every six years) and one in each territory (3 every three years).
Mar 4th, 2008
Andrew Bartlett
The good thing about fixed terms is that they can be introduced without a referendum – just by amending the relevant legislation.
Of course, with Queensland not having an Upper House, having something in legislation is not much of a protection, as a government can just change the law again pretty much at a whim.
Mar 4th, 2008
Benjo
Andrew,
So when is the earliest date we can have you running for a seat in the QLD parliament and then as an alternative Premier?
Mar 4th, 2008
CORAL
I don’t think Queensland should move to 4 year terms, unless the change comes with a mandatory upper house of review.
I don’t want 4 years of totalitarianism without a break.
Three year terms might provide a better performance, with the Governor-General having the right to cast out any “Whitlam clones” sooner.
Fixed terms might take away the Prime Minister’s penchant to call an election when he thinks he’s looking good in the public mirror.
I liked Dylan’s suggestion regarding timing of state and federal elections.
Andrew:
Why do the Americans have such long election campaigns? Is it primarily because they have 52 states?
Mar 4th, 2008
Andrew Johnson
Interesting… I agree with you that we shouldn’t just do something because everyone else is doing it, particularly without an upper house. I think fixed terms and four year terms are two separate issues. Government’s just try and conflate the two issues because they know the public will support fixed terms and so they push for an extra year as a trade off. I think the idea of four year terms is designed to prey on the “don’t care” apathy of many voters. It was interesting to watch 4 Corners last night about the Joh era. Many times he talked about stable government. I can’t see much point in stable but corrupt, unjust or incompetent government.
My concern with fixed four year terms in Federal Parliament is the idea of eight year terms for Senators. With most major party Senators hardly having to run anyway I think then installing them for eight years is a dangerous idea. I’d support fixed three year terms or fixed four years but with full Senate elections which would have the added bonus of increasing minor party representation – always a good thing.
Mar 4th, 2008
Tony
Coral
I agree an upper house is needed in Qld.
The current Beattie/Bligh government has a lot to answer for.
Regions would include North Qld, Central Qld,
Nt Coast, Sth coast and Brisbane with a western Qld section.
This would not only provide the much need checks and balances but give the regions more of a voice in how funds are spent in the State.
If a state the size of Victoria has one it seems
strange that we cant.
Tony
Mar 5th, 2008
Lorikeet
Beattie only annoyed me when he produced his low protein “peasant” diet, and when he decided to amalgamate councils.
Bligh has not annoyed me at all (yet).
I think the alternative leaders put up by both the Liberal and National parties in recent years in Queensland have left the voters icy cold.
Even many of those opposed to the Traveston Dam liked the idea of a dam much better than the prospect of Flegg et al.
Flegg’s replacement is so lacklustre I can’t even remember his name. Just when I didn’t think they could get anyone more Flegg-like than Flegg, we get whatshisname(?)
Mar 5th, 2008
franklin
Perhaps term limits for politicians could be considered. At present we have the phenomena of the “professional politician”, whose experiences consist mainly of student politics at university, then work as a political staffer or union official, and then into state or federal politics for as many terms as possible.
Term limits would hopefully draw a more diverse group of qualified people from varied fields of endeavour who have experience in “the real world” who could make valuable contributions to the governance of this country.
Citizen initiated referendums could also perhaps be considered. Around the time of federation these were considered, but were not proceeded with. These allow citizens the opportunity to initiate laws for consideration by the electorate without the need to enter parliament.
Both of the above are incorporated in the governance of the state of california.
Mar 6th, 2008
Lorikeet
Franklin:
I wouldn’t put too low a value on experience.
Citizen initiated referenda might be worthy of further consideration.
Mar 8th, 2008
Naomi Cartledge
I wonder at the federal level being only for 3 yrs.First 1 ‘getting used’ to government,last 1 ‘preparing for next election’.I don’t agree with PM having the power to call election to suit him/her-fixed terms would eliminate this.We really only have a full yr of ‘proper’ government(whatever that is any more?).
In the Illawarra,where W’gong scandal is now coming to public notice,people are wondering about what HASN’T been exposed.This problem is not to do with terms,but those who are motivated to stand,for ulterior motives,only.Makes me wonder what the adjoining councils are up to!I’m a firm believer in developers,real estate agents not being permitted to stand.Also,both major political parties have benefited from donations.ALP in 4 yrs $24million,Libs in 4 yrs$27million according to Lee Rhiannon(Greens,ABC radio a week or so ago).I also agree with Labor putting the declaration laws back prior to Howard’s changes.It was $1500 to declare changed to $10,000(Howard).Rudd says $1000 to be declared in future.We should have access to the figures as soon as possible after election not a yr or so later!Not good enough!
In fact,no contributions other than public money would be ideal.No room for bribery etc then!Major parties would never agree though!
Mar 10th, 2008
margaret clinch
11.3.20008
It is my experience that politicians promoting fixed terms for a parliament use ‘four year terms’ in the same sentence. I do not think the people should be rolled by this type of spin.
Governments frequently run for more than one term, so the minimum time period is of less absolute consequence.
I believe in fixed terms, unless a government is incompetent, or not working to the rules, because it gives new, employed candidates time to plan ahead when they intend to stand. However, I think the specified life term should be three years.
M A C
Mar 11th, 2008
muzzmonster
Good point Margaret. The two are entirely separate issues.
I’m don’t mind fixed terms, but fail to be convinced by the need for longer terms. Surely we’re not going to be hurt by more democracy. Certainly Paul Williams’ arguments are unconvincing.
Mar 11th, 2008