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.
