The setting of the date for the election must be uppermost in the mind of Prime Minister John Howard. The over-riding consideration will be to maximise the chances of the Coalition retaining Government. Survival is a base instinct and it tends to be put at the forefront. The Government would happily cancel the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting and send troops immediately to the Middle East if it thought that this meant the difference between winning and losing the election. Never mind the inconvenience to those attending and organising CHOGM. The convenience of the Government capacity to capitalise on the short-term visceral fear generated by a combination of the terrorist attack in the US and the Tampa refugee affair comes before everything else.
It is not a satisfactory situation. Parliament is also left to a guessing game. It is rushing through legislation on the presumption that this is the last sitting week, but it would be possible, though unlikely, for the Government to hold off until later in the year and for there to be another sitting. Businesses and people throughout the country are left in a state of uncertainty while the Government at its secret convenience determines when to have the election. It also maximises its advantage over the Opposition by knowing the date before the Opposition does so it can organise its policy announcements while the Opposition is left with an uncertain timetable.
Events this electoral cycle have highlighted some of the unfortunate consequences of leaving in the hands of the Prime Minister the virtually unfettered power to nominate the election date. Truce, the Governor-General must formally approve the date, but in effect the Governor-General would rubber-stamp the decision unless it was so radically early as to be democratically unjustified.
This cycle, CHOGM is at the mercy of the Prime Minister because, by convention, he cannot have an election campaign running while the Queen is in the country. The timing of CHOGM was perhaps always the creature of Australian electoral timing. It was thought, before the US attack – that the Government would have basked in the glory of CHOGM with the Prime Minister playing statesman amid Commonwealth leaders and then gone to the election on that high. Now, however, the crisis created by the US attack have given the Government a greater lift in the polls than CHOGM could possibly have, but, ironically, precisely because of the opportunistic scheduling of CHOGM, the Government cannot capitalise immediately on that lift before it dissipates as the electorate looks at things more rationally.
With CHOGM in the way, Mr Howard, cannot emulate former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher who marched off to war in the Falklands in 1982 and then marched to the polls at a timing of her own choosing to capitalise on it.
At present Australia is condemned to the uncertainty of election dates and the unfairness of having the Prime Minister set them by provisions in the Constitution and the Electoral Act. Technically, he could hold off until January 6, even thought the previous election was held on October 3, 1998. The three-year term does not run from election date to election date, but three years from the first sitting of Parliament after the election (November 10, 1998) plus extra time for nominations and a campaign.
How much more sensible it would be to have a fixed three-year term for Parliament with a set election date. The ACT, for example, has its election date set as the third Saturday in October every three years.
Obviously, some adjustments would be needed for double dissolutions, but a fixed term would enable everyone – business, conference organisers, those who deal with legislation, the Opposition and the Public Service – to plan with some certainty. Only the Prime Minister of the day would be disadvantaged and then only in a political sense that would have nothing to do with the public interest.