4 year terms

[Rorschach]

Con job: four-year terms good only for pollies
The Australian
12:00AM July 25, 2017
Paul Kelly
Editor-At-Large

Malcolm Turnbull must be ­kidding. The idea of fixed four-year parliamentary terms at the national level is a con job.

Like most bad ideas it resur­faces every 15 or 20 years and the Prime Minister is wrong to say it should be considered — it needs to be thrown into the dustbin and forgotten.

This proposal is a sham. It means more power for politicians and less for the people. It means less accountability for governments and politicians and less democracy. It means bad governments spend longer in office doing more damage and denying the public the chance to remove them. The idea four-year terms deliver good government is a joke; good government is about character. If you don’t possess it for three-year terms, it won’t materialise over four. Check our state government performances to prove the point.

Even worse is the likely linked notion of an eight-year Senate term. That would be an anti-democratic travesty. The idea of fusing the immense constitutional powers of the Senate with virtual semi-permanent election of senators is a potent threat to governance. There should be zero tolerance of this notion, advanced under the fraudulent cover it would lead to better government.

Bill Shorten’s tricky claim that the Senate problem can be solved — Labor’s formal policy is for a radical shift to four-year Senate terms — is spurious. The Opposition Leader wants to look more bipartisan to improve his image. That’s fine. But if the Liberal Party falls into this trap it will prove what many suspect: it is weak, soft and an easy touch for Labor’s ­manipulations.

Labor’s four-year Senate terms policy has potential but only if it comes with a changed Senate voting system to remove the huge bias in favour of minor parties. But there are two certainties: a four-year Senate term proposal would split conservatives, violate the constitutional conception of the Senate, cause untold chaos inside the Coalition and provoke ­upheaval for a totally doomed cause. Have no doubt, the four-year term proposal is dead before breakfast. In 1988 the Hawke government put a referendum for four-year terms for both houses and lost every state with a dismal 32.9 per cent of the vote. The public will never buy it. That Turnbull told Shorten on Sunday morning he was open to further discussion on four-year terms is abject folly.

Shorten’s proposal is phony ­because it doesn’t address the problems in our system and actually makes them worse. Anybody who thinks the dysfunction of our national politics for a decade is about the absence of four-year terms needs another scotch and a long siesta. Do you really think Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott would have been different in office and saved from chaos by having a four-year term?

The arguments sound like satire. It invites ridicule when Shorten says it means “more daring” government or when Liberals who back it say it will promote business confidence. The idea of four-year terms has been kicked around for decades — its appeal, superficial at first consideration, inevitably dies at second consideration.

The Liberals are a puzzle and an eternal joy to Labor. Shorten has sabotaged their agendas, misrepresented their policies, indulged in ruthless partisanship and when he changes tack the Liberals seem happy to co-operate.

The four-year-term issue is an insight into the nature of our parliamentary system. The founding fathers built a structure that defies easy change. In our Constitution, part two concerns the Senate and part three concerns the House of Representatives. You cannot consider changes to the house without considering changes to the Senate. In creating the Senate as a house of review, the founding fathers provided for a long, six-year Senate term and also provided for the ­rotation of senators — with half the Senate facing an election each three years. The integrity of this design points to an eight-year Senate term to match any four-year house term.

Yet an eight-year Senate term makes largely unaccountable senators even more unaccountable. It looms, therefore, as a killer ­element for any linked four-year term for the house. But this proposal can serve a purpose. It might make you angry about the sham that poses for democracy in this country. Consider that at last year’s election, 4.7 million voters in NSW and 334,000 voters in Tasmania got the same deal: 12 senators elected. A Tasmanian vote has 16 times the power of a NSW vote.

Tasmanian senator Jacqui Lambie got a shade over 28,000 party votes or about 0.19 per cent of the total nationwide vote — and became a balance-of-power senator. That’s right — on one-fifth of 1 per cent of the vote. In Western Australia, One Nation got a balance-of-power senator on 54,000 party votes, about two-fifths of 1 per cent of the national vote.

The Senate is an anti-­democratic rort. Short of a double-dissolution election all senators enjoy six-year terms — they only need to be elected three times for a 20-year career. Where else can you get a deal like this? And some people now tell us they deserve an even better deal — let’s give them eight-year terms. That would make an arrogant and irresponsible Senate even more arrogant and irresponsible.

We know the story. The Constitution turned the colonies into states and the Senate compact was the price for Federation. The principle of equal state representation will not change and nor should it change. What should change is the voting system. The truth, however, should be kept up in lights — the Senate is a monument to the ­denial of equal representation.

The ALP platform now specifies simultaneous fixed four-year terms for the house and Senate. In brief, if Shorten sticks by Labor’s platform then the far bigger change he envisages concerns the Senate. The rotation of senators ends; their six-year term goes back to four years; and the separate life of the Senate ends by having simultaneous elections (whenever the house goes to the people the ­Senate also goes).

The truth, of course, is that Labor for much of its history has been hypocritical about the Senate. It has one Senate policy for true believers and another for a political party interested in power.

[Neferti]

All State/Territory Governments have 4 year terms, don't they? Great that we don't have to go to the Polls to vote more often than that.

However, I don't think it would be a good idea to have the Federal Government do the same .... imagine being stuck with Krudd, Gillard, Abbott or Turnbull for FOUR YEARS and not be able to vote them OUT!

[Black Orchid]

They need to ask the people how we feel about their performance, immigration and SSM before they start trying to extend their time in office.

Four years is too long so ... NO!!

[Rorschach]

Totally agree... been saying much the same stuff as kelly. if they cant get it right in 3 then 4 won't help and if they want longer terms they need to earn an extra 3 by doing a good job.

[skippy]

I'm not a fan of four year terms. But I am a fan of fixed terms. I think a government should run its entire term rather than call an election when the PM of the day thinks he has the best chance of winning.
I didn't realise/can't remember Hawke attempting to introduce four year terms.

[Outlaw Yogi]

4 year terms?

Not happening! ... 3 year terms for HoR and 6 year terms for the Senate are welded to the base plate of the Australian Constitution.
So it's not like Mal and Bill can just agree and make it happen. The question needs to go to referendum, and it will get knocked on the head.

Just the mentioning of it is really just a distraction (like gay marriage) from something importent.

All State/Territory Governments have 4 year terms, don't they?

No. Not in Qld.

[Neferti]

4 year terms?

Not happening! ... 3 year terms for HoR and 6 year terms for the Senate are welded to the base plate of the Australian Constitution.
So it's not like Mal and Bill can just agree and make it happen. The question needs to go to referendum, and it will get knocked on the head.

Just the mentioning of it is really just a distraction (like gay marriage) from something importent.

Right! So what the hell are they carrying on about? Trying to distract us plebs, no doubt.

All State/Territory Governments have 4 year terms, don't they?

No. Not in Qld.

Thanks for that, I wasn't aware that Queensland still had 3 year terms.

Must admit that I am pleased that in Canberra we only need to front up at the Polling Booth every 4 years for the Local Mickey Mouse "Administration" ... I really don't know why I bother. In Canberra we only have a 2 tier system too, unlike Sydney when I lived there and had to vote for Local Councils, State Government and Federal Government ... occasionally ALL in the same bloody year!

The times I was left off the Electoral Roll were great.

[boxy]

The ACT election is a local council election

[Neferti]

The ACT election is a local council election

I know, that is why I referred to it as "the local Mickey Mouse, Administration".