Ben is joined by Stewart Jackson to wrap up the NSW state election, but to also discuss the news about a possible expansion of the federal parliament.
This podcast is supported by the Tally Room’s supporters on Patreon. If you find this podcast worthwhile please consider giving your support.
You can subscribe to this podcast using this RSS feed in your podcast app of choice, but should also be able to find this podcast by searching for “the Tally Room”. If you like the show please considering rating and reviewing us on iTunes.
I am pretty sure the answer to this question is in the Constitution, but I am too lazy to look it up.
However, listening to the podcast remained me of another old chestnut that always gets my goat up – why do we have half senate elections? If you are trying to design a system that is intended to reflect the people’s will and give effect to good governance, then surely electing half a Senate in one particular point in time and then electing another half Senate in another particular point in time is DEFINITELY not a good way to go. The issues facing the country and the way that people think about a particular set of issues are LIKELY to be very different in the space of 3 or 4 years. So you could have half the Senate that was voted in on a very different set of issues and community mindset still possibly dictating the the terms of the current government that is facing different issues and community mindset. A recipe for dysfunctional governance IMHO.
Given my other radical idea yesterday is not going to go anywhere, I would propose another radical idea (which will probably fail due to the conservative nature of Australians to hold onto a belief that what was proposed 120 years ago is still fit and proper for today) is that we have a fixed 5 year term for both the lower and upper house and all seats in the Senate are up for grabs. That way we get longer and POSSIBLY more forward looking governments willing to bring about necessary reform (e.g. tax) and a better alignment with both houses based on the mood of the nation at that particular point in time.
I think Peter’s idea yesterday in the post on Time for a bigger parliament was a good one – hold a Citizen’s Assembly on “How should the parliament should be structured to serve the people?” or something similar. My personal preference would be – “If you were to sit down today and devise the best form of democratic representation, governance and decisions making – what would it be?” Leave it open and don’t constrain it by what the current Constitution says or doesn’t say – present the widest range of options (even the wacky one) and let various proponents put forward their suggestions and leave it up to the Citizen’s Assembly to come up with their preferred option/s. I would also add that any such Citizen’s Assembly should be backed up with full media attention and reporting so that it can add to the debate, but also contribute towards greater civic education across the country.
Yes that is in the constitution. Indeed they held a referendum in 1988 to move to 4-year terms for both houses which would have eliminated the overlap. I’ve been banging on about this topic for a while both in terms of federal and NSW elections – often it means a new government faces a difficult upper house not because that’s how people voted, but as a relic of the previous election. See the 2008 Senate and the new NSW upper house.
I don’t feel strongly about 3 or 4 years (5 is too long) but I’d be a strong advocate for that 1988 referendum if it was happening now. Sadly it failed badly.
You wouldn’t implement such a long parliamentary term. I think it would be considered unacceptable, and wasn’t considered in WA when they changed their upper house.
I definitely think 3 years is too short. Pollies often start to think of the next election after 1 year and that just distracts them from the real job at hand.
We have 4 year terms in Qld and the sky doesn’t fall in.
I have to disagree that 5 years is TOO long. Governments are in the business of, often, big initiatives and having worked in State and Local Governments, I know these sort of things can’t be knocked up, solidified and then successfully articulated to the general public in the space of even a couple of years. I just think we will, hopefully, get more considered policy proposals if the government of the day knows they have the time and space to fully develop them, without having to turn one eye towards an upcoming election too soon. It is not as though we are turning over governments every 3 or 4 years. Once elected, we tend to stick with the same horse for at least 10 years. So two terms of 5 years may be all that is necessary, rather than 3 or 4 terms of 3 years, where anything could happen (e.g. leadership change) that can dramatically turn a party and country around.
Comments are closed.