Fixed terms, unintended consequences

Alternatively, there could be civil unrest of some nature (like a series of strikes) such that it is appropriate to call a “who runs the country” election.

However, you can’t really identify whether an issue is one of these sorts of issues in advance. Everything turns on the political context of the day.

That is not to deny that there is a legitimate expectation that a government will usually run to term, or that there will be parliamentary leaders who will go to the electorate for cynical political reasons. However, I think the electorate is smarter than many in the political classes think. Anything that is particularly cynical will be punished. The last Western Australian election is probably case in point.

And in any regard, I don’t think that an exercise in democracy is a bad idea at any time. I also think that four years is too long between elections.

It is probably right that four years is the common period for a parliament or elected official. However, demand in many of these jurisdictions there is a capacity to easily call elections should circumstances arise.

In other circumstances, the electoral system is designed to ensure that the system’s overall electoral mandate remains fresh. For example, Barack Obama is President of the United States for four years. However, the House of Representatives is elected for two years. One-third of the Senate is elected at the same time as the House of Representatives.

It, therefore, means that whatever Obama does will receive an electoral test every two years, not every four. Any policy overreach can be punished; proper policy rewarded.

If there is to be fixed terms, then a fixed three-year term is probably appropriate. However, I have always supported the erstwhile Australian system of unfixed three-year terms.

I have never accepted the argument that four-year terms are necessary because it would be too hard for politicians to implement contentious yet necessary policy reforms because of fear of electoral consequences.

The microeconomic reforms generally described as national competition policy (and now the National Reform Agenda) have led to significant changes to the structure of Australian society - all achieved by governments of different persuasions within a political system with unfixed three-year terms.

No one would want to have a political environment such as that currently operating in NSW. Yet that is the unintended consequence of a policy design thought to be a good idea by participants in a hung parliament of nearly 20 years ago. The policy experiment has failed. It must be reformed. We should go back to the future with unfixed three-year elections.