Longer term for Parliament

Press, 10 July 1979, Page 20

Longer term for Parliament

Extension of the Parliamentary term to more than three years has been advocated by the Planning Council in its report to the House of Representatives. This idea has not been canvassed with any enthusiasm since a referendum in 1967 turned the extension down by a quite emphatic vote. The size of the poll, however, was not impressive and a larger poll, taken in conjunction with a General Election might have produced a result more favourable to change.

The simple argument of the Planning Council, like that of advocates in the past, is that the three-year term is not long enough for a Government to implement its policies properly. In support of this argument the council mentions hasty legislation, the threeyear cycle of election “auctions” which is not consistent with a considered response to economic and social problems, and the short time in which the electorate has to judge the effects of policies.

Because a referendum was used to determine the question in 1967 it is difficult to escape the conclusion that a popular vote is the proper way to deal with the question in the future. The growing need for long-term policies, especially on such vital matters as industrial development, the use of energy, and the direction to be taken by social

welfare schemes is probably sufficient to persuade Parliament to reconsider the question of its term. A 75-per-cent vote in favour of a longer term would be sufficient for Parliament to make the change. Such a vote might be more persuasive than a close result in a referendum. If, however, the main parties would commit themselves to a four-year term, or longer, the electorate might well accept the merits of a change and vote accordingly.

To ensure a substantial vote the referendum would have to be taken in conjunction with a General Election. The only objection to this course would be that voters might not get the chance to give the question fully informed consideration. The answer to this objection would be found in adequate discussion before the election campaign. The Planning Council is surely right in raising the question again and also right in adding that, if a longer term were adopted, the process of making political decisions should be more open and not confined, for the ordinary person, to a vote every three years. The Planning Council’s next step might be to show more precisely how this might be done: when it has been demonstrated that more people will actually take part in making decisions a referendum might, succeed in extending the term of Parliament.