Mike Elliott: Constitution (Parliamentary Terms) Bill

Extract from Hansard

Legislative Council
4 July 2001

Mike Elliott
Leader Australian Democrats
Member of the Legislative Council

Parliament Index
2001 Autumn Sitting Index
Browse by Subject
Search all Democrats material
About the SA Parliament
Hansard on line

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I rise on behalf of the Democrats to support the second reading of this bill. In fact, fixed terms are something for which the Democrats have called for some time. I think the last occasion when we did it formally in this chamber was on 4 August 1993, when my colleague the Hon. Ian Gilfillan moved a private member's bill. As I recall, I think the date that he had suggested was 27 November (or something similar), but basically that bill referred to a late November election. The essential point I am making is that we have called for this for a long time and, in the past, there has been resistance. However, the nice thing about being in this place long enough is that the things you have been pushing for over many years eventually start to emerge, and this is another case of that happening. Fixed terms-

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: When you were in power last and the private member's bill was introduced, I do not recall the Labor Party rushing to embrace it at that time. I am not critical of the fact that the Labor Party has changed its position-indeed, I welcome it. We wish that it had happened earlier. Nevertheless, we are grateful that it has now happened. To not have a fixed term is unsatisfactory. With the current situation, where an election could happen three years after the previous election, one tends to find that we are in an election mode about a year before the earliest possible date.

So, the government is two years into its term and you find yourself in election mode. The way that current legislation stands, the election could be held up to four years after the parliament first sat. So, the real term of the government is potentially as long as four years and three or four months. That means-and it is starting to look like this time, although I will believe it when I see it- that the election campaign started two years after the government was elected and continues for about two years and three months. That is not satisfactory in terms of good government or parliamentary process. If the government knows the election date, it is, if you like, in a position to switch into election mode at a certain period before then. But they will not be switching on and off election mode as they change their mind as to the most appropriate date; nor will the opposition parties be tempted to do the same thing.

If we go to fixed four-year terms, it is a reasonable assumption that a government will be doing some semblance of governing for about three years rather than two years before going into election mode for perhaps another two years. That has to be good for the state. I certainly think that a fixed four-year term has an advantage over a fixed three-year term because there will be three years of governing rather than two. There is always a question mark as to how long before democracy is undermined. I note fixed terms in some countries stand at five years. It is my view that that is too long, because there are times when governments become very unaccountable and the next election is taking forever to come-and we are in one of those cycles at the moment.

It is always a question of balance as to how frequently you go to the people to give them a chance to judge the government's performance as against how much time the government is given to perform or not perform, as the case may be. While I have indicated my support for the second reading, I certainly reserve comments on individual clauses of the bill during the committee stage.