Australian Politics

1336 readers

10 users here now

A place to discuss Australia Politics.

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone.

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

It's been a feature of Australia's elections since federation. Albanese supports a change (www.sbs.com.au)

submitted 3 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Albo supports shifting from a PM called election within a 3 year term to a 4 year term of fixed length.

"If you've got a three-year cycle, in practice, that often means that you really only have a shorter window of perhaps a couple of years to bring about substantial reform, by which time you're looking at the next election," he said.

Having a fixed term of parliament would remove the ability for prime ministers to call early elections, as well, which typically favour the incumbent government.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

"If you've got a three-year cycle, in practice, that often means that you really only have a shorter window of perhaps a couple of years to bring about substantial reform, by which time you're looking at the next election," he said.

No, you have three years to bring about substantial reform. If you decide to prioritise campaigning over reform, that's your decision and a longer term won't change that.

There was a significant push for one year terms early on, I'd much rather see that than a reduction in our democratic voice.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

There was a significant push for one year terms early on, I’d much rather see that than a reduction in our democratic voice.

That sounds like a mess, especially if the public service has to deal with changing governments all of the time (if there was public service reform that limits the influence of the government in power I'd be for that, but that is challenging). And whether you like it not, the incentives would be for governments to constantly be in campaign mode with shorter terms.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

The ideal is that a functional government doesn't change all the time, but a nonfunctional one can be removed before too much damage is done. Consistency isn't beneficial if it's consistently bad.

I can't argue against the potential for constant campaigning.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

The problem is that then governments are slaves to the populist vote, and the population will always vote for the quickest benefit to them.

There's been quite a few projects and policies in Australia that have been short term pain for long term gain.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

As always I have serious reservations about calling representative government democracy at all, that being said I think that fixed term lengths is a greater step forward in democracy than a longer term length would be a step back. If that's the compromise I think it's worthwhile.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I do agree with fixed terms, and would probably vote yes in a referendum that only offered a package deal