As ex-politicians age and journalists get younger, the level of distortion about past political events grows accordingly. Today’s example is John Howard claiming, at least according to a Nine journalist, that “he had tried to increase the parliamentary term in both government and opposition”.
Reader, John Howard did not try to increase the parliamentary term either in government or in opposition.
In 1988, the Hawke government took to a referendum four proposals for constitutional reform — to embed basic rights such as freedom of religion in the constitution, to recognise local government, to prevent states from gerrymandering electorates Bjelke-Petersen style — and for four-year terms. All four proposals suffered big losses (some of the biggest ever in any referenda) after the federal opposition campaigned against them.
The leader of the opposition at the time? One John Howard.
The Coalition campaign against the 1988 referendum, led by Peter Reith, was a mix of mindless reaction and lurid conspiracy theory: recognising local government would lead to the creation of ACT-style “socialist republics” around the country; there was no need to recognise “freedom of religion” because that freedom already existed, so what was Labor’s real agenda? (what the right would give now for constitutional freedom of religion); enshrining the principle of “one vote, one value” would undermine the right of state governments to tailor democracy to the special conditions of their state. The Coalition even suggested the Electoral Commission was engaged in a conspiracy when it published the Yes and No pamphlets — exactly as provided by the Yes and No camps — and the Yes pamphlet had a bigger font.
The argument against four-year terms was that the Coalition wanted monster eight-year terms for senators. Already unrepresentative, the Senate would become a ticket to a near-decade of indulgence for those lucky enough to be elected or appointed. In truth, the real point was to inflict defeat on Labor.
That all of this was replicated in the 2023 referendum for the Voice to Parliament is testimony to how little things change in politics, especially on the right.
Four-year terms are again being discussed because there’s a feeling we have too much democracy for our own good, and three-year terms are hindering the urgent task of “economic reform”. No-one mentions that Hawke and Keating managed okay with three-year terms (and Hawke went early twice). Peter Dutton has expressed support, and Premier Minister Anthony Albanese says he’d prefer longer terms. Thorny problems like the Senate are yet to be grappled with in what is essentially a push from the business elite to make it easier to introduce reforms opposed by the community.
What is the ideal length for a parliamentary term? In the United States, they have two-year congressional terms and six-year Senate terms — though no-one seems to think two-year terms hinder business activity there. The United Kingdom, with its unwritten constitution, has settled on five-yearly elections. The Canadians have four-year terms. Take your pick.
Some Swiss and American economists a few years ago tried to model the ideal length of parliamentary terms. The result was rather complicated, but they at least arrived at one sound point:
a connection between the term length and checks and balances (as captured in a reduced form by the extent of the marginal cost of change). Increasing low (high) levels of checks and balances should go along with longer (shorter) terms, provided that social preferences are relatively stable.
That is, the more checks and balances, the greater the case for longer terms. The fewer, the poorer.
And therein lies the germ of an idea. If politicians and vested interests like the Business Council think three years is too short, if they want to reduce our democracy by one-twelfth by only giving voters a chance to toss governments out every four years instead of every three, then let’s have more checks and balances to even up the fact that there will be less accountability for politicians.
Let’s have an independently enforced code of parliamentary conduct, restore sacking ministers for misleading Parliament, real truth in political advertising laws, meeting diaries for all MPs, limits on political donations and campaign spending, serious freedom of information laws, and give estimates committees greater powers to grill ministers and public servants. Politicians currently argue they shouldn’t face the same kinds of accountabilities as, say, business executives, because they face the ultimate form of accountability to voters in elections.
Well, if they want to reduce that accountability, the least they can do is provide proper accountability in other ways. Anything less is simply a win for vested interests.
The Coalition had 3 terms and achieved nothing
Mission accomplished.
They managed to do a lot of harm.
Killing off Australia’s car manufacturing industry was definitely something. A shout out to Tony Abbott who should be asked what benefits have flowed to our nation from that decision.
If we are considering benefits or lack of them from Parliamentary decisions and I know the car industry wasn’t privatised but like the car industry , I can not think of one Privatisation that has delivered the benefits promised EG Electric supply ,Banks, Public transport ,Highways , immigration detention then there are the secret privatisations CES , Schools ,Universities , Hospitals, Medical Benifits , Water and Sewer , and they want less scrutiny
And destroyed the NBN.
That was their plan. Oh sorry, God’s plan.
Why Bernard, are you trying to call John Howard a liar? I’ve never heard such accuracy.
The culture of that crew… Abbott claiming to support Ukraine while inhabiting an anti-Ukraine swamp in Hungary, reminds one of the GOP (linked to same swamp).
A dramatisation of Cheney working for Rumsfeld and questioning the ethics and morals of a strategy to adopt; Rumsfeld stood up, walked into next room with door open, then laughed and laughed at what he had just heard and making a point.
‘Whatever it takes’ has corrupted the right…..
After Morrison I don’t think 4 year terms are going to fly.
Nah, it gives them the chance to share the Prime Minister duties around, just like in their previous 9 years with 3 PMs.
Sharing suggests playing nicely. A>T>M? Not according to Nemesis.
They even stuffed that they dumped abbott within days of a PM,s pension
It would have been a continuing nightmare which is even greater in the UK right now with 5 years of a completely dysfunctional government. However if enough checks and balances were put in which enables and ensures accountability and penalties as described by Bernard in his article then perhaps 4 years for both the House and Senate could be considered with pre selection for Senate seats occurring every four years rather than continuity of two terms
Yes that’s possible. The ACT and NT have only two senators each and all senate positions are up for election at every HoR election.
Four year terms for the House of Reps and six for the Senate. That would involve half-Senate elections every second cycle. And four year terms for government should be coupled with some mechanism for the people to recall a dysfunctional government to an early election. Otherwise we risk the situation in the UK where the government starts doing serious damage to the country because it is so unpopular.
BK instead of you continually critiquing a broken, corrupted system ie the Duopoly why don’t you advocate for how we can get rid of it? One might be to ensure a fair entry into the system by independents. The Lib/Labor duopoly actively exclude Teals & indies. The majors aren’t interested in governing in the best interests of Australia. The cogent talks by Yanis Varoufakis eg NPC attest to this. Juice Media does the same. Please show how we can rid ourselves of the duopoly not continually criticise it – we know what the problem is. Cheers
Gavin can I please co-sign your excellent post?!!
Please do. Go for it.
Looking at the broad sweep of history, including the Roman Empire, Weimar, the first French Republics, Italy, modern day USA, Hungary can we think of a ‘democratic’ system which is actually stable and not likely to be taken over by populists and authoritarian nut jobs? What model of democracy is best? The US thought they had the best, but just look at the results.
first step is to fix the media ownership laws
Every situation, from a board game to politics boils down to two dominant players. So it’s situation we need to manage rather than rue. We need better players and a more informed electorate. Free education from cradle to grave maybe?
As an old classmate of Jack Howard, let it be known that he is and always was deficient in truth, ignorant of ethics, morals, decency, logic and manners and cannot face reality without an egofixated slant to attempt to look “human”. An appalling fraudy humanoid…