Cheryl Kernot and Liz Cunningham should engage in some deals.
Kernot’s Democrats are likely to hold the balance of power in the Senate (or at least part of it) after March 2 and Cunningham is an Independent who will hold the balance of power in Queensland after the Mundingburra by-election result is declared.
Some things are worth making deals over. While Telstra and environment packages come and go, institutional reform tends to endure and is worth trading off some transient advantage for.
A good example is the Chartist reforms last century: universal, equal franchise; payment for MPs; regular elections to Parliament and so on.
Another is the reform in NSW forced by the independents in 1991: fixed-term parliaments; reform of parliamentary procedure; making the executive more accountable with independent financial and audits.
In Queensland, Premier Wayne Goss could ask for another general election. Only the good sense of a governor would stop it. But governors do not always have good sense; it is not very democratic to allow the fate of the government to be in their hands; and in any event, if the Coalition takes over government, it is highly likely that it will go to the polls early if some short-term advantage can be gained.
The very long phoney election campaign before this federal election shows there is no advantage in the unfixed term. We may as well all know the precise date well in advance. Why should the side that happens to be in power get the advantage of fixing the date?
Cunningham should dust of the deal done by the NSW independents in 1991 and tell the Coalition that that is the price of support.
In addition to getting parliamentary veto over jobs for the boys, Kernot should dust off in 1982 reform proposed by Gareth Evans which was so cynically dropped by Bob Hawke once Labor attained government.
That proposal was one of the most sensible, balanced reforms to overcome the four most significant constitutional uncertainties in Australia: the 1975 supply problem; too many elections; Senate election getting out of kilter with the House; having too much discretion in the hands of an unelected governor-general.
The proposal is quite simple. The term for the House is fixed at three years. The election is on, say, the first Saturday in December every third year … come hell or high water. The Senate can still block supply, but if it does it forces an election for both Houses. The Senate can still block legislation, but the Government can demand a double dissolution. The House can still express no-confidence in a Government and not replace it with another. But in each case, the government that comes in after the intermediate election only serves out the balance of the fixed term and the next election is on the first Saturday in December.
The incentive for blocking supply would be reduced as the reward would be lower.
It would stop all that macho, puerile, combative politicking that goes on over election timing. Australia would have much more orderly arrangements. The Governor-General (or president) would have much less discretion over calling elections and sacking governments. There would be clear rules set out which would cover more situations than at present.
The reform is so sensible and balanced that (unlike the usual constitutional proposals which involve some power grab or other) it would get approval. The proposal is balanced because while it reduces the Senate’s power over the prime minister, it also reduces the prime minister’s power a little.
Kernot and Cunningham should realise (as the NSW independents did) that you do not get many chances.
Playing games with election dates, jobs for mates and general abuse of executive power are the things that have caused such cynicism about politics. That cynicism has delivered in the past decade or so more hung parliaments in Australia than every before. It is time for those who hold those balances to force the changes (by dealing if necessary) that will put an end to opportunities for the executive abuse that caused the cynicism in the first place.
Mere changes of government do not do that. After a time, the other lot behave just as badly. You have to change the rules, not the governments.