The last thing we need is longer political terms

The idea of four year terms may be tempting for many an elected politician, but the reality is that we don’t need to give them more time in office. We just need them to do a better job when they’re there, writes Paul Williams.

There’s little doubt the Palaszczuk Labor Government is courting unpopularity like a kid with halitosis at his first school dance.

Ballooning debt amid public sector blowouts, intractable unemployment and — the big one — a gold medal-winning backflip with reverse pike on the Adani coal mine have shaken the faith of even the truest believers.

That rapid fall from grace makes me wonder how many of the 53 per cent of Queenslanders who voted in 2016 to introduce fixed four-year parliamentary terms in Queensland would now vote against it. Would those now cranky with Palaszczuk and Trad still be keen on longer terms knowing the opportunity to remove them would not come for another two years and four months?

Leaving aside the “fixed” element which denies the right of leaders to manipulate election dates for political advantage, I strongly suspect any Queensland referendum on four-year terms would now fail.

MORE FROM PAUL WILLIAMS: Morrison has one person to thank for his remarkable win

Voters’ trust in political elites is collapsing like a dodgy pyramid scheme, and I can’t see electors happily giving governments more power (and less accountability), for longer. After all, elections are ordinary voters’ only real power to punish non-performing pollies.

That’s why I gasped when I read how Coalition figures are again considering federal four-year terms to bring Canberra into line with every other state and territory.

I wonder how many Queenslanders who voted in 2016 to introduce fixed four-year parliamentary terms would now vote against it. Picture: AAP/Sarah Marshall

Uniformity, in itself, is not a good reason. And nor is the usual argument that longer terms remove short-term political thinking.

The fact Australia suffers from appalling “short-termism” is beyond dispute. Cabinets, always with an eye to the next election, too often opt for popular but unhelpful policy over unpopular but necessary reform. Just look at the tax cuts the Morrison Government announced leading up to the May poll. Tax cuts Australia can ill afford, yet happily dangled before voters to win an election. Tax cuts that, totalling $9 billion this year, wipe out next year’s forecast budget surplus.

Yes, “short-termism” is a problem, but adding a paltry year to each parliament will not change the culture of the permanent election campaign where every action a government takes is with an eye to re-election. Worse still, longer terms empower already muscular political elites. Just look at our ever-expanding national security laws.

MORE FROM PAUL WILLIAMS: Major parties could learn a lot from Palmer voters

Interestingly, the Australian Electoral Commission is also keen for longer terms. Not only would fewer elections save money (the May poll cost over $200 million — but that’s only about $15 per vote) but AEC staff wouldn’t need to be on constant standby to sate a PM’s whim. That’s a reasonable concern.

Of course, any move to fixed four-year terms must be approved at referendum. That means both the Coalition and Labor must offer bipartisan support to amend section 28 of the Constitution — more likely than you think given Bill Shorten and Malcolm Turnbull were on the same page on this issue in 2016.

Uniformity, in itself, is not a good enough reason to change term lengths. Picture: AAP/Lukas Coch

Australians were last asked to endorse four-year terms in 1988 — a referendum that, despite the best efforts of the popular Bob Hawke, failed in every state.

And I see no reason why voters nationally would be any more enthusiastic today. Except, perhaps, that our growing contempt for politics would make us happy to go longer between polling booth visits.

But that’s lazy and dangerous thinking. Being disgruntled with political elites is more, not less, reason to vote more often. The powerful always need to be watched.

If the Coalition and Labor are truly keen on Constitutional reform, let them revisit section 24 — the “nexus” clause that demands the House of Representatives be roughly twice the size of the Senate.

MORE FROM PAUL WILLIAMS: One Nation belongs somewhere, but not parliament

Most Australians rejected breaking the nexus back in 1967 when only New South Wales supported it. I argue it’s time to reform section 24 so that when Australia’s population sees the House grow to, say, 200 MPs (up from 151 today), we’re not also forced to feed 100 senators (up from 76 today). And forget about slashing the size of the House: electorates of 200,000 or more would be unworkable for MPs.

But it’s not just pay packets at stake. It’s the fact 16 senators from each state would see, under a Single Transferable Vote electoral system, the quota to elect a senator fall from 14.3 per cent to 11.1 per cent, and from 7.7 per cent to just 5.9 per cent in a double dissolution.

Think we’ve got, in the words of Paul Keating, “unrepresentative swill” in the Senate now? Just wait till the quota falls so low that any political wannabe, any ideological fringe-dweller among the political flotsam and jetsam, can be elected on a handful of votes and preferences.

Australia doesn’t need to give governments and parliaments more time in office. It just needs better governments and parliaments.

Dr Paul Williams is a senior lecturer at Griffith University.