The resignation of the Federal Member for Fraser, John Langmore, to take up a position at the United Nations calls into question the method of replacing MPs who do not fill their full term and the propriety of MPs who having asked the electorate to elect them for a three-year term fail to fulfil the contract.
Far too much is made of the expense and inconvenience of a by-election. When to total sum is looked at … about $100,000 … it invites a gasp, but typically, elections cost between $1 and $2 per voter, which is a very small price for democratic rights. And voting takes no more time than going tot he bank or choosing a pair of shoes.
That said, politicians should as a general principle stay for the time they promises at the time of the election. There are obvious exceptions for illness, but there are also others. It is generally in the public interest that MPs are not precluded from public appointments to other national and international positions. Elevations to the judiciary, the governor-generalship, the diplomatic corps and to senior United Nations positions (as is the case for Mr Langmore). It is not acceptable, however, for MPs to leave Parliament just because their side of politics has lost an election and Opposition is unappealing or because an MP has lost a ministry or because an MP is just sick of it and wants to return to family life. Labor’s Ros Kelly was an example of the last two. The fact her conduct was unacceptable was shown by the voters at the subsequent by-election who delivered a record swing against her party, but who returned a Labor member at the next general election. True, there were other factors, but it is unlikely that Mr Langmore’s departure will be seen in the same way.
A further exception to the principle that MPs should stay the distance should perhaps be made for Prime Ministers who lose elections or the leadership. Once again, the public interest is perhaps better served if former Prime Ministers move quickly to a new role more suitable to the dignity of their former office. That said Billy Hughes stayed in Parliament for a long time after losing the top office; Ted Heath in Britain and Brian Langey and Robert Muldoon in New Zealand are other examples.
Mr Langmore probably has good reason for thinking he might do better at the UN than he has in Parliament. He has been an MP of high principle but has failed to transfer his principles to any practical effect. At the national level, his commitment to the principle that full employment is the primary aim of economic policy fell on the deaf ears of colleagues more committed to economic rationalism. Despite his undoubted economic qualifications, he failed to get himself into any position where he could significantly influence policy or have any practical effect. At the local level, and as president of the ACT branch, his failure was equally manifest. Mr Langmore was committed to the preservation of public assets, the integrity of the leasehold system and to the development of the city in a way that enhanced public infrastructure. Yet he failed to persuade his ACT Labor colleagues to take the slightest notice of that, allowing them to erode the leasehold system and hand public assets to speculators with hardly a whimper.
Mr Langmore certainly carried a great deal of respect, and indeed some affection, for holding on to his principles in a period of Labor pragmatism that many might describe as sell-out. But the effectiveness of an MP of his longevity has to be measured in the ability to persuade colleagues. The independent lone-wolf role is more suited to the academic. That said, Mr Langmore did a good job in the MP’s ombudsman-type role of dealing with individual constituents’ problems, but in his safe seat he had the chance to play a more significant role.