Independent Michael Moore has unveiled a plan to increase the term of the ACT Legislative Assembly from three years to four years. It is getting support from other MLAs.
When the ACT first got self-government in 1989, the Federal Parliament provided for a form of proportional representation and fixed three-year terms. The first proportional election system proved unworkable. In 1992 a indicative referendum overhwhelmingly supported the Hare-Clark system.
In order to give effect to that result, the Federal Parliament repatriated control over elections to ACT Legislative Assembly in 1994, giving it power to make general electoral law. The Assembly implemented the spirit of the referendum. That implementation, though, was marred by unsuccessful attempts to circumvent the spirit of the decision by the then governing Labor MLAs bent on serving themselves with a de-facto party voting method. Because of that, the cross-benches and the Liberals forced a further referendum in 1995 to entrench the Hare-Clark system. It was passed overwhelmingly. It means a referendum or a two-thirds majority in the Assembly are required to change it. The entrenched elements are: compulsory voting; a minimum five members per electorate; Robson rotation; no party voting and optional preferential voting.
Unfortunately, no-one thought that fixed three-year terms needed entrenching against politicians putting themselves before the people. Changing the length of the term is a breach of the spirit of the 1992 and 1995 referendums. The message of the 1995 referendum was quite clear … no mucking around with major elements of the electoral law without a referendum or two-thirds majority of the Assembly. That message has not sunk in to our MLAs. How many i’s have to be dotted and t’s crossed? Surely, the spirit of what the people want can be read. (And perhaps we were naïve to imagine that a two-thirds majority of MLAs was sufficient protection.)
There is no cause to change the fixed three-year term. A lot of the debate in the 1980s seeking four-year terms in other parts of Australia and federally was because their three-year terms were not fixed and frequently led to terms well under three years. Significantly, a Queensland referendum for a four-year term was defeated in 1991.
Four years makes politicians less accountable to the people. It is even less meritorious in situations of likely minority government, as in the ACT. There is no need to lengthen the term, and it certainly should not be done without a referendum.
At least the Federal Parliament insisted on a proviso for electoral equality of one-vote, one value (within a 10 per cent limit). Without that, no doubt some MLAs would want to rort that.
If the MLAs go ahead with the change, the Federal Parliament could always overrule it. But it should be careful in thinking about it. It should only interfere in the ACT and Northern Territory when the constitutional integrity of the self-government process is under threat, or in the when the national-capital character of the territory is threatened. Otherwise, it should leave well alone.
It would be a moot point whether the lengthening of the Assembly’s term without a referendum is such a threat. Where would the line be drawn? Six years? Eight years?
The Federal issue aside, our own MLAs should realise that because MLAs themselves have such a huge vested interest in electoral matters, no fundamental change should be made without a referendum.