|
| Insert Joe Tripodi-Kristina Keneally joke here |
The New South Wales Labor government must be wondering if it can make it to the March 2011 election without suffering a revolution. The Sydney Morning Herald is inviting readers to sign a petition in support of a “recall initiative”, an innovation associated with that most famously well-governed of polities, the state of California. As it works in California and a few other American states, a recall election is held if demanded by a number of petitioners equal to 12 per cent of votes cast at the preceding election. The ensuing recall election is a full statewide poll on whether a new election should be held. In 2003, 1,356,408 valid signatures were obtained to recall Democratic Governor Gray Davis, initiating a recall election that passed with 55.4 per cent support and a gubernatorial election at which Arnold Schwarzenegger polled 48.6 per cent to the Democratic candidate’s 31.5 per cent.
Speaking on the ABC’s The World Today, Herald editor Peter Fray said only that he considered the recall initiative an “option” that was “worth exploring”, which makes his paper’s actions all the more provocative. Editorialists including the Herald’s own have long been telling us that fixed four-year terms give governments the time they need to make tough but necessary decisions. The recall initiative would swing the pendulum wildly in the opposite direction, leaving governments in constant terror of a death that could come at any time. This and other aspects of direct democracy seem to be linked to California’s endemic budgetary problems, which are exactly the sort of thing our newspaper editors are normally very keen to avoid.
It’s customary to note here that those who specifically decry “fixed four-year terms” are partly missing the point. That the terms are “fixed” is neither here nor there, as the government would hardly be holding an election in the present circumstances if only the constitution allowed it to. Provision does exist for an early dissolution if the government is defeated on confidence or supply, but such defeats can only occur in the lower house, where in spite of everything Labor retains a solid working majority. Notwithstanding that it remains the norm federally and in other states, there is apparently no enthusiasm for the idea that the upper house should equally have power to force a government to election. The power to block supply was removed from the Legislative Council in 1933, as was entirely appropriate for a chamber that was still not popularly elected and would not become so until 1978. But the modern Legislative Council is elected by a pure system of statewide proportional representation, and surely has equal claim on a popular mandate to a Legislative Assembly which Labor is able to control with 39 per cent of the vote.
However much it might have to recommend it in the current circumstances, the notion that any upper chamber should be able to call time on a government under the proverbial “extraordinary and reprehensible circumstances” seems to have been eternally discredited by 1975.
Well I for one favour with the notion that a government is required only to command the support of the lower house. Only the lower house makes a government, so only the lower house ought to break a government. The upper house is the house of review, not the house of government.
All this fuss about the fixed term length is nauseauting. The government was democratically elected to a new four year term in March 2007. Even if they weren’t required to serve that term to its completion, they would still be perfectly entitled to do so. This government may have become lethargic, but the wheels of the bureaucracy keep turning. I also think some people overreach with their criticism. The persistent allegations of corruption seem pretty flimsy. The state is not in crisis. This government will meet its fate in March 2011. Until then, some people just need to be patient.
You are absolutely right, William, that it’s not the ‘fixed’ part that’s the problem. It’s the ‘four-year’ part.
The nineteenth-century Chartists had six aims:
manhood suffrage
secret ballot
no property qualifications for MPs
payment of MPs
one vote, one value
annual Parliaments
The first five have happened.
I have heard the arguments against shorter Parliamentary terms. They are all based on limited faith in democracy and limited trust in the voters. If you don’t trust the voters, why support democracy at all? I believe in democracy, I think the voters should be trusted, and on that basis I don’t see any good arguments against shorter Parliamentary terms. Sure, more frequent elections would cost more, but all elections cost money, and I’m not going to give up on democracy just because of that.
Of course, what’s going to happen in practice is that some people will continue to fuss about this until the elections, and the newspapers will run with it if they think there’s some mileage for them in it, and then once the election has happened, everybody will forget about it until the next time a long-serving government becomes extremely unpopular. The chance of it being a prominent issue at the same time there’s a significant prospect of doing something about it is non-zero but very small.
The Chartists had their influence on term length. That’s why we had 3 year terms in Australia rather than 19th century UK’s 7 year term. NSW adopted 5 year terms in 1856 but switched to 3 years in 1870.
I always thought Newpapers reported the news. Now apparently, they manufacure it as well.
A clear over reach by moneyed interests that are neither democratic nor focussed on the public interest.
[The Chartists had their influence on term length.]
Possibly, but clearly not enough.
One federal, six state and two territory elections per year would keep the bludgers happy, but wouldn’t give Antony much rest 🙂
Martin B,
It would be bliss. If only they could split the upper and lower house elections.
Now that would keep Antony occupied.
The media runs this country and is trying a coup de tat over an elected government, duly and democratically elected for four years.
As mentioned it should report and research the news and not get involved in stunts.
marky,
God bless your woolen socks.
We have agreed on something, what a rarity… now where have i seen that dog before?
Marky,
So you’re on the journey back to Labor. Good for you.
Unless you wander the backblocks of Greensborough, you will not have seen my dog.
Mistaken about the former but close to the latter. Must be something to do with the local government.
William, it’s not actually a petition, since there’s no indication that it’s going to be presented to anyone. It’s just a declaration, allegedly on behalf of “we the people”, that the state government ought to resign because the SMH says so. The SMH might like to recall that we, the people of NSW, govern our state, in accordance with our constitution, by electing a Parliament for a four-year term. We did that in 2007, and we’ll do it again in 2011. In the meantime, the SMH is free to criticise, but it’s not a newspaper’s business to try to foment a revolution. The vanity of the old media knows no end.
As I understand it the ‘petition’ is a request that a referendum be placed before the electorate at the same time as the 2011 election, to insert a recall provision into the NSW constitution (whilst not altering 4 year terms).
It is not a request that the government be sacked, that a recall ballot be held, that the government resign or an election be held now.
Assuming such a referendum was held (and passed), the recall provision would only apply to the government elected in 2011 and future governments. Thus the SMH petition does nothing to change the status quo up until March 2011.
However, it maybe engaging in a gigantic fantasy to think a referendum could be held in 2011. A bill to insert a recall provision in the NSW Constitution would need to be passed by both houses first. Would NSW Labor sponsor or support such a bill? Without the support of Labor, the bill would not pass both houses.
If there is a change of government in 2011, an O’Farrell government may be able to secure passage of such a bill. Unless a stand alone referendum was held, the referendum would not be held until the general election in March 2015. So the recall provision would only apply to governments elected in 2015 or later.
The campaign for a recall provision, is more likely to act as a damocles sword hanging over an O’Farrell government.
A recall provision campaign offers hope for those who wish to be rid of NSW Labor now. However, realistically, they are stuck with it until March 2011.
I should have added that the notion that the NSW constitution is “our constitution” is a little overstated.
The Australian constitution could be described as “our constitution”, because any changes to it requires the approval of the people.
However, the NSW consitution can be changed merely by passage of a bill through both houses except in respect of those matters required by s.7A and s.7B (the entrenching provisions) to be passed by a referendum.
A recall provision, which would potentially change the period of a parliament, does require the consent of the people under the entrenching provisions.
^Interesting. But why should the phrase “our constitution” turn on the way it is amended? If it’s not “our” constitution then whose constitution is it?
It’s the “pollies constitution” because they have the power to change it without the approval of the people (except in respect of those things requiring a referendum).
Well the people of New South Wales elect the New South Wales Parliament to represent their interests. If the New South Wales Parliament is ‘our Parliament’ I think it isn’t too much of a link to say the Constitution is ‘our Constitution’.
You’d like to think the Parliament would not amend the Constitution in a way to hobble itself. The states power to amend their own Constitution is really only a worry if the government of the day has control of both houses.
I wonder whether this idea has more legitamicy because it is the SMH and not the other Sydney daily.
WOuld this petition have any legs at all if it was the Sunday Telegraph spruiking it?
OK, this may seem like a dumb question, and it’s probably already been covered…..
Doesn’t the NSW governor (whom I’ve met) have the power simply to dismiss the government?
Didn’t Jack Lang get the sack?
Too much democracy was the downfall of Athens.
[I wonder whether this idea has more legitamicy because it is the SMH and not the other Sydney daily.
WOuld this petition have any legs at all if it was the Sunday Telegraph spruiking it?]
Well duh. The Telegraph has nothing to do with actual news (other than the name of the company that publishes it).
‘Doesn’t the NSW governor (whom I’ve met) have the power simply to dismiss the government? Didn’t Jack Lang get the sack?’
Sir Philip Game dismissed the Lang government after Lang ‘defied’ the Commonwealth and the High Court. The Court had ruled that the Commonwealth could legally take responsibility for NSW’s overseas debts, which Lang was refusing to pay. Lang had issued a circular saying that NSW public service salaries were now in danger. Game thought the circular was inaccurate and illegal.
Game argued that Lang was defying the law on a quite specific issue – although it was never tested in court. The situation isn’t comparable to today’s state government.
The Daily Telegraph started a petition about a week before the SMH. It asks the Governor to dissolve parliament and call a fresh election. Well, things don’t just work like that…….LOL.
Maybe the SMH petition is it’s (more sophisticated) attempt to maintain market share.
I dont remember the newspaper establishment demanding the recall of the Askin government which must have been the most corrupt and hopeless in recent decades. Fixed terms are a way of having the people rather than the pollies or the sensationalist media or the Governors making the decision about when elections should be held.
A recall mechanism would also allow the people to make the decision about when elections should be held.
Itep – true but why would the trigger be less than 50.1% asking for it?
Well that would be a very high bar to set. The question is always how high to set such a bar for a recall to occur. I’m yet to be convinced of recall provisions’ merits but my mind remains open.
[It’s the “pollies constitution” because they have the power to change it without the approval of the people (except in respect of those things requiring a referendum).]
But Peter, who puts the pollies there? The people.
Itep 26
Thats an interesting point.
If you mean that the people could decide by the recall mechanism the length of parliament in advance, I am not sure that is intended.
The recall proposal involves as I understand it the maintenance of fixed 4 year terms subject to the length of the term being cut short in the event of a successful recall.
What I am not aware of is the mechanics of the proposal.
For example:
a. On a recall, would the new parliament only sit until the scheduled date of the next 4 year election, or would the new parliament get a brand new 4 year term?
b. Would it only be the Legislative Assembly (where the government is formed) that faces election?
c. How would the Legislative Council be treated? At present half its members are elected each 4 years for an 8 year term. If the LA was only to sit until the next scheduled election, would the LC remain as is? If a complete new 4 year term was given to the LA, would the oldest half of the LC be up for election, with the youngest half then facing election in 4 years time (effectively cutting short the expected terms of all members)?
d. How many people are required to petition to bring on a recall referendum?
Premier Keneally has suggested there should be a debate about the proposal.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/keneally-adds-support-for-debate-on-recall-elections-20091211-kok2.html
However, the implementation of any such scheme is unlikely to happen “over-night”.
Gary Bruce -29
The question is I suggest: Did the people give the pollies authority, expressly or impliedly, to alter the constitution.
If the answer to that question is yes, your argument has legs.
If the answer is no, then I don’t think it has.
Ho hum. Just journalists trying to big-note themselves.
The State Govt is hopeless. We (by which I mean both the people as a whole, and the Liberal Party) get a chance to do something about that in March 2011. Let’s hope we (in either sense of the word) don’t stuff it up.
[If the answer to that question is yes, your argument has legs.
If the answer is no, then I don’t think it has.]
So the people may have put them their saying we don’t want you to change the constitution? Hardly.
Recalls would be a disaster IMO. Look at California. One of the richest places in the world, and it’s practically impossible for Govts to make a credible budget.
Well I wonder what the support for recall would be if the punters realised that it was the recall of the NEXT government they might be voting for? The SMH, after supporting fixed terms, is acting very irresponsibly. You cant call for recall just because you dont like the government that the people voted for
silly season has well and truly commenced
[The recall initiative would swing the pendulum wildly in the opposite direction, leaving governments in constant terror of a death that could come at any time. This and other aspects of direct democracy seem to be linked to California’s endemic budgetary problems, which are exactly the sort of thing our newspaper editors are normally very keen to avoid.]
Spot on, William. As someone who still votes in California elections, the last thing NSW needs is an electoral system which is so easily manipulated by the wealthy (secular and/or religious) groups who can fund signature-gathering on the ground in shopping centres or through the abuse of newspaper ownership.
As Ross Gittens has been pointing out for almost a decade, the disgraceful systemic infrastructure neglect in NSW is the product of the Carr and Howard governments which was camouflauged through their bloated expenditures on the Olympic games and their incessant self-promotional media campaigns. Because we re-elected Carr and Howard over and over again, it was only natural that they grew all the more egregious.
Now we have the spectacle of the Murdoch and Fairfax empires, which gleefully pocketed great wads of Carr’s, Iemma’s and, presumably, Rees’ exorbitant advertising millions, righteously appointing themselves as the “grass roots” saviours of NSW democracy. We are witnessing a level of ratbaggery that makes “Citizen Kane” (William Randolf Hearst) look like the poster boy of impeccable public interest journalism.
Although it’d be a pleasure to vote against the current NSW government if an election were held in the next few months, I’d far rather wait another year than to hand over our democratic processes to become the adventure playgrounds of CEO’s for the Fairfax and Murdoch mega-corporations.
Sorry, that’s Ross Gittins, the SMH economics columnist
[Now we have the spectacle of the Murdoch and Fairfax empires, which gleefully pocketed great wads of Carr’s, Iemma’s and, presumably, Rees’ exorbitant advertising millions, righteously appointing themselves as the “grass roots” saviours of NSW democracy.]
Hemingway – where were they when NSW voters were up in arms about the last Lib. Govt. We couldn’t wait to get rid of them but the implications of this ‘recall’ idea are awful to contemplate. How would a Govt. be able to make any nasty decision. It would be constantly looking over its shoulder.
I prefer 4 years terms. I hate the 3 year cycle because only 2 of it are really spent governing. The 3rd year is an election year. It’s crazy.
It is not Labor’s fault that the Opposition in 2007 was woeful and lost an unloseable election.
BH, I’m not in NSW but can see the govt is terminal. What exactly is O’Farrell going to do to save the state???
23
Lang was sacked because he had the Treasury take all NSW`s money out of the banks and conducted all NSW`s business in cash so that the Commonwealth could not take the money to pay for the overseas loans.
Andrew: the main criticism of O’Farrell is that he has basically no policies, or at least refuses to say what they are. Last year he went on the Merrick and Rosso and Kate Ritchie show on Nova – hardly the toughest interview in town – and when asked the not unreasonable question “it’s easy to carp, but what are you going to do differently?” he just said “I’ll bring a fresh approach and new enthusiasm” or some similar blather. The only actual O’Farrell policy which springs to mind is cancelling the CBD Metro and using the money saved to fund the northwest and southwest rail links, which were cancelled in the 2008 mini-budget (although Rees reactivated the southwest link a few months before his demise, and as far as I know it’s still proceeding). But apart from that he’s been largely silent on policy.
If this was the murdoch media I could understand the media push which last forced a Govt out aka the dismissal.
The change of govt takes place at elections by the will of the people which is what democracy is all about NOT by some media baron with his nose out of joint.
The sad thing here is that the NSW libs are almost as useless no policies and a dud leader and even a slight improvement in the NSW govt performance might get it over the line again hence this backdoor spray.
Ken Henry’s call to arms. He asks some questions that are very hard for someone my age to answer.
http://petermartin.blogspot.com/
The solution in NSW is for one side to put forward a decent team. Changing from one group of miss-fits to another isn’t going to solve your problem.
On balance Victoria is very lucky with a sting of great Liberal Governments. The current one being one of the best.
fredn,
Too flaming true. Bob Carr was often complimented on being the best Liberal Premier which NSW had ever had.
Nothing is going to come of this, except that the newspapers are going to use it to fill up some space, which is obviously the reason they’re doing it.
[How would a Govt. be able to make any nasty decision. It would be constantly looking over its shoulder.]
Yes. The government would have to pay attention to the voters, as if this were a democracy or something. Couldn’t have that, now could we?
[I prefer 4 years terms. I hate the 3 year cycle because only 2 of it are really spent governing. The 3rd year is an election year. It’s crazy.]
To say that there’s something wrong with election years is to say that there’s something wrong with elections.
[Yes. The government would have to pay attention to the voters, as if this were a democracy or something. Couldn’t have that, now could we?]
Bit of a silly thing to say. Of course governments should be accountable, but they shouldn’t be at risk of termination every second of their term.
Your argument supposes that all voters are well informed and make decisions based on facts for complex policy issues. People would NEVER vote based on emotion for things like GST or ETS … would they?
To introduce things like recalls or 1 year terms would turn Parliament into something like voting for Australian Idol. I would fight that with my dying breath. Governments are there to govern and make tough decisions. The people get their judgement at the end of a reasonable term.
43
Lang held his million pounds for well over a month at Trades Hall before Game sacked him. The specific reason Game acted was the (allegedly) illegal circular to public servants.