The Sydney Daily Telegraph, a newspaper which likes to see itself as some sort of courageous voice of the people, has been losing readers hand over fist, and more recently, an editor. The paper is also running a campaign for the NSW government to sack itself. It’s impossible to read any article in the online version on state politics without intrusive links in the middle of the story directing readers to its petition, and a plethora of other anti-Rees widgets, rants and commentary.
But in the parallel world where the fixed four year term is decried as the fountain of all evil, it seems to me something odd is going on. Paul Kelly traces the constitutional change back to the Greiner regime, but downplays the fact that the movement towards fixed terms in the early 90s was part of a range of managerialist measures and an overarching approach to governance which argued – reasonably explicitly – that political accountability was an annoying obstacle to “reform”. This was an era when all manner of measures – privatisation, purchaser/provider splits, downsizing the public service, closing schools and hospitals and competition policy – were trumpeted by elites as necessary but largely rejected by public opinion.
Indeed, there’s a residue of this managerialist politics apparent in the Rees government’s fetishisation of the state’s AAA credit rating.
However, the managerialists of yesterday are the populists of today. But I’m completely puzzled by Paul Kelly’s logic here:
He means a device to enable an election to be held mid-term to save NSW from a truly disastrous government, such as the present administration. The point is that in a globalised world, guaranteed political tenure is a fatal flaw. The NSW experience shows that the fixed four-year term model is a fraud on the public interest.
We are losing the political culture that surrounds the Westminster model. Its flexibility, depicted as a problem, is a virtue. It means that pressure can mount on bad governments for an election and that strong governments, when they need a new mandate to confront a crisis, can seek that mandate.
The inability to procure an election in NSW at present does not help the people of NSW. It assists only the Labor machine that tries to run the state in its own interest.
Just as I’m not surprised that a state government should resist calls to “sack itself”, I’m completely at a loss to understand how – if the Greiner era constitutional changes had never happened – the Rees government would be wanting to rush to an election where it would probably be wiped off the electoral planet in short order. Whether or not NSW is now some apocalyptic wasteland, I can’t say. I haven’t been to Sydney since February (and strangely I found it quite easy and convenient to get around by train then.) But I can’t see how some sort of constitutional recall provision (presumably administered more independently than by the tabloid press) is at all consistent with the Westminister model, or that governments under the Westminster model are constantly attempting to engineer their own defeat and that NSW Labor is being prevented from doing that by a pesky constitutional provision. I’m forced, rather, to conclude that certain elites thought populism was a horrible thing last decade but now think it’s all the rage. Because, after all, newspaper columnists are the voice of the people, aren’t they?
Elsewhere: Some interesting reflections from Lyn Calcutt at Public Opinion on these newspaper crusades and their implications:
Is it a newspaper or some kind of uber citizen? The will of the paper is the big story of the day. Could they be more self-referential? Would it have been more appropriate for the editor to publish a letter to himself?
Update: Andrew Bartlett on the case for three year terms.
Mark, I’m not immediately sure that it was argued that “argued – reasonably explicitly – that political accountability was an annoying obstacle to “reform”.” I’d be interested to re-read the articles, if only they went back that far.
Quiggan’s got an article in favour of fixed three year terms for Federal elections (he gets the dates of NSW’s introduction of four year terms wrong by 10 years).
The debate around fixing the terms (recorded in Hansard) makes for interesting (?) reading. It’s brief – but it seems like it was supported (to a greater or lesser extent) by pretty much all the parties. The Liberals had reservations – they seem to think the independents in the Legislative Assembly screwed them over Greiner, for some reason – but they supported it nonetheless. The only reference to accountability – such as it is – is that the Premier can’t randomly call an election whenever he or she reckons the numbers line up.
It almost goes without saying that Kelly’s arguments are risible. Why does a strong government need a new mandate? They’ve got the numbers in the house, or they don’t. It’s not like Howard would have returned to the people to seek a mandate for Workchoices – they had the numbers, which was the only mandate they needed. And as for a weak government, sure, Rees could have gone to the polls to try to seek a mandate, but they’re not complete idiots, so that’s never going to happen.
I seem to recall that that was the defining rationale (at least that is how it was sold), it was about making Govt’s serve full terms and not annoying the public with cynical electoral games, though it’s implementation was itself cynical in that it was designed to serve the ‘reformers’.
At the time it WAS seen as a good thing, particularly by the public.
As for the ‘reform’ thing, the people of NSW have no stomach for it, there isn’t much left to privatise and ‘reform’ anyway…..save for Labor, which everyone agrees needs a serious dose of the salts.
I dare the Liberals to go to the next election with a serious platform of privatisation and reform, just so, you know, they actually have a mandate for it rather than claiming one after winning and election that will have more to do with getting rid of the bastards you know rather than wanting the fruitcakes you also know.
We’re beyond the point of knowing whether the NSW government is objectively good or bad, with the hijacking of politics by the MSM for its own purposes, to do with its maintainance of its mediationary powers.
What ‘s been seized is the perception: the reality is no longer the issue, which is a pity because the quality of the NSW government, as bad or good as the tabloid exaggerators say it is is now sadly subservient to another game; the MSM’s desire to maintain its role as kingmaker.
That this directly conflicts with good government, the imperatives of democracy and the lives of milions of people becomes irrelevant. Once public opinion has been hijacked by those capable of manipulating it, to manufacture consent, the gig is up.
NSW is relevant only as a guinea pig model employed for the main game of consent manufacture and selling of an electorate (commodity) to the highest bidder in the future, involving eventually the greater prize of the federal parliament.
It’s the only game in town. Whether, in a single party, right wing totalitarian state one or other of two factions gains power in a province of that regime, becomes exclusively based on the needs and consent of MSM string-pullars and machine politicians operating for skulking vested interests the MSM and the oppportunists operate on behalf of.
NSW as a working democracy?
Forget it!
The fatal error for democracy has for some time been the ALP’s Right’s inability to recognise the danger of the MSM- the last chance arriving last fed election and was passed over by the troglodytes Conroy and Rudd, with their supine grovelling to Murdoch. Worse, the capitulation of Gillard and the other brighter cowards, who abandoned without even the appearance of a resistance, the engagement to change (the) paradigm(s) engaging the public’s mind to reinforce it/them; operate within it/them , like crow parasites picking ’round a sick sheep, rather than like a vet trying to cure it..
Kelly’s problem is that he, like the rest of those tossers in the press, seem to think it’s their God-given right to dictate when elections are held and who wins ‘em. Deep thinkers all, they reckon they (and only they) know when a change of leadership is required.
Well, just like the good people of the USA gave the world GW in 2004, those of NSW gave us Labor in 2007 (also as it happens, for 4 years). And come 2011, those same good people can give Labor a complete shellacking and put that motley collection of religious nut-jobs and Sado-Monetarists known as the Liberal Party onto the Treasury Benches, should they so desire.
It’s called democracy and it’s a real bitch, isn’t it?
So, unless you can find another drunken stooge like John Kerr to stage a coup d’etat for you, you’re just gonna have to suck it-up, fellas.
Look on the bright side. At least they give you plenty of grist for your miserable scandal-sheets. Think where your circulation would be without Labor: You’d have to resort to printing topless shielas on page 3 to sell a paper.
Unless I’m remembering all this incorrectly, the NSW ALP govt was absolutely on the nose last election – until the Libs ran an absolute drongo, fronting a 3rd rate team of no-talent time-servers.
FFS NSW, go Green!
Lefty E, your recollection is correct (as I see it). Unsurprisingly, I agree with yuor last line too. Peter Debnam was characterised much in the way as Ted Baillieu is in Victoria, with an additional serve of David Clarke. This sort of thing, largely was how Debnam was presented. It seemed to work, although it was tied into Workchoices too – there was lots of anti-Workchoices advertising in the 2007 state election.
It’s rather unfortunate, but the prevailing view seems to be that O’Farrell will John Howard his way into government.
Paul, I note your point about the difficulty in assessing the NSW government, but disagree with it. I agree with you that certain media outlets like to see themselves as kingmakers. But the NSW ALP is utterly inept. Extra serves of vitriol from the Terror isn’t really necessary. Projects get announced but not built (or not completed – Parramatta to Chatswood rail link, north west metro), and they’re trying to preserve the AAA rating no matter what the cost. They then proceed with objectively stupid policies (desalination plants when water storage is at over 60%) and funding for V8 car races at Olympic Park when there’s a perfectly good (?) track at Eastern Creek).
Fortunately for NSW readers, it’s an optional preferential voting system. If you’re so inclined, you can vote 1 Greens and not distribute preferences further.
Alister @ 1, I’m referring more to the general climate of political debate around “managerialism” at state level – ala Greiner, Goss and Kennett – where a host of “reforms” – all neoliberal stuff – was proposed as the unavoidable necessity for modernising governance and other blah. To the degree that it was recognised that this stuff was electorally unpopular, the pundit class all lauded longer terms to enable governments to make “tough decisions” in the absence of an immediate electoral reckoning. Incidentally, I think a lot of this fed into both Howard’s win (insofar as it was a function of “reform fatigue” and the Hanson backlash.
I note that one of the links the Daily Terror is highlighting is a claim from Jeff Kennett that he could “fix” NSW. I’m not sure a lot of Victorians in the 90s enjoyed being fixed by Jeff.
As a resident of NSW I reckon it’s a pretty awful government we have at the moment, but nothing to do with fixed terms and everything to do with the complacency of being in power for years. Much like the Coalition nationally became complacent, but with less of a reform idea.
Actually I think they haven’t got a clue what their goals are anymore and anything that looked like a plan, turned out to be expediency and therefore quickly forgotten. They’ve been doing business as usual for a number of years now and not just in the headline stuff either. In all those pockets of social policy where they could do interesting stuff, they’ve fallen back on that old faithful, creeping incrementalism.
Elsewhere: Some interesting reflections from Lyn Calcutt at Public Opinion on these newspaper crusades and their implications:
I think much is attributable to the prevalence of machine men in both parties, which means a lack of options.
Which makes me wonder if primary style elections for preselections would improve anything. Say party members within a certain electorate can vote for whom the candidate will be in an election administered by the AEC. We needn’t even have primaries as open as the US, but eliminating the party run preselection dimishes the power of branch stackers, factions etc.
It may stimulate growth in party membership again, and the executive etc. can still get determined as normal in a Westminster system.
As for 2011 it’s interesting that the Libs primary vote hasn’t improved much in polls, and with voluntary preferences and smaller seats than federal elections, this throws up some more possibilities.
Greens in Marrickville etc. as well as a huge swathe of independents, especially in regional NSW (I’d suspect the entire lower hunter will go independent). We may have a hung parliament.
And I think this would be preferable to either major party ruling alone.
I find Paul Kelly’s piece truly astonishing. Calling fixed terms “a fraud on the public interest” is the sort of knowingly nonsenical inflammatory trash you’d expect from a tabloid ranter, not a supposedly serious political analyst.
I know he’s not the only journo to run the nonsense that people could get rid of the NSW government earlier if it wasn’t for fixed terms, but Paul Kelly is meant to be some sort of wise old oracle who can cut through the tumult and the shouting of the spin doctors and tabloid yelpers – instead he’s giving a bigger push to this nonsense than anyone else.
The only thing that can force a government to go to an election early is a vote of no confidence in the Lower House of the Parliament. That applies whether there is a fixed term or not.
The NSW debacle might be an argument for shorter terms – I’ve certainly become more convinced in recent years of the benefit of 3 year terms rather than 4 – but to link it to fixed terms is a total red herring.
Fixed four-year terms was an idea from the Last Of THe Anti Managerialists, one E G Whitlam, who curtailed one term voluntarily and had another curtailed for him. FFYTs were forced on Greiner in 1991 by independent MPs, neither he nor the Coalition would have agreed to it unless they were under the gun. The independent MPs included Clover Moore and other anti-managerialist pollies.
Speak for yourself! I think the Nathan Rees Fuckup Squad is the worst NSW government since the Rum Corps took over. You can’t complain about the meeja when you produce a “mini budget” that is basically a bunch of press releases that miss the wider points of economic management and service delivery.
The reason why the Tele readership is plummeting is because people who like tabloid journalism watch telly or go online. People who read the SMH still need to read the paper (not as much as they did, but still …).
Mark:
This is exactly as I remember it – although I think that was about four year terms per se, rather than whether they were fixed or not. Four year terms aren’t actually the way to do this properly, of course. The proper way to do that would be for parties to be honest about their intentions. Pretty much all the substantive parts of Frightpack were implemented by Howard, after he repeatedly lied his way into government, and then lied his way through every term he had. You could have two year terms, and still have governments implement ‘tough’ (whatever that means) decisions, if they actually had the courage of their convictions required to explain their intentions before an election, rather than after one.
Jeff Kennett going north to ‘fix’ NSW would give me one more reason to be glad I don’t live there.
Andrew E – fixed four year terms may have been Gough’s idea but like a lot of his extremely tedious constitutional proposals, it was just a quixotic thought bubble. Indeed it’s true that Greiner et al weren’t all that keen – as pollies – but my comments referred to the punditariat and the general managerialist tone of the times. Apologies if that wasn’t clear.
We have fixed four year terms in Victoria. I’ve been against 4 year terms ever since the Cain/Kirner debacle, and I don’t care for fixed election dates either. I’m happy for incumbents to spill whenever they want to, or more importantly, when they don’t have a choice.
It looks like NSW now knows what a Cain/Kirner government is like. Like Victorians, they’ll elect their own Kennett government as the antidote.
Mark I think you’ll find most Victorians (as opposed to the left) were happy to have Jeff running things for a while. He certainly got a moribund state moving again. If he’d sat back and said “that’s enough change” in 1998 he might have been there for another two terms, but that wasn’t his nature. His was as radical a government as I’ve seen in Victoria.
Sorry, but I think it’s quite a lot simpler than many have made out here.
Hawke and Howard both made the timing of elections into their personal plaything. Isn’t that a “fraud on the public interest” too?
That, and the meeja love to spend one year in every three/four speculating about whether the state or federal potentate will call an early election. Isn’t that wasteful entrails-prognostication a “fraud on the public interest” too? Especially when it distracts so much attention from, you know, actual government?
Fixed terms are a good thing if the government can use them as a horizon for their strategic plans. There’s enough uncertainty in public governance as it is – why add to it?
Yes Mercurious, exactly.
The habituated thinking that is reinforced. What are democracy and participation really about?
Mercurius: actual government, planning in NSW – I think that’d be a great idea.
“It looks like NSW now knows what a Cain/Kirner government is like. Like Victorians, they’ll elect their own Kennett government as the antidote.”
I’m not so sure about that. The only thing that makes the opposition look competent is the current government. A low bar, I’m sure we’d all agree. If there’s a Kennett lurking in there, he/she would have to go a long way right to outflank the right of the ALP (or indeed, some would say, the left of the ALP) in NSW.
One wonders how many people, apart from the Channel 9 Today Show, really take any notice of the Daily Teletrash. i was forced to read it recently while in hospital as the only means of keeping up with the news, (the SMH being considered either too difficult for sick people to handle in bed, or too erudite for Armidaleans – who makes these decisions?)and consequently I had absolutely no idea what was going on.
I am no fan of the NSW Government and have plenty of misgivings about it. I’d be very happy to see a change of government. However, it is clear that the MSM is being extraordinarily biased against the government in its reporting in recent times. I wish they would do the objective reporting and let people form their own opinions.
Alistair @ 21 .. yes indeed. I saw this morning the SMH Website carries a prominent “exclusive” : “Rees below a brothel” .. the implication of course that it’s somehow connected to him but when you read the article, clearly as tenants the Rees electoral office is a victim of the illegal brother that rents the space above it. The office actually raised the presence of the illegal brothel to the local council which is trying to have it evicted. In other words, it’s just non-story really. It’s just knee-jerk, biased, non-reporting!
Ohhh … I bet “Prime Minister drives past drug dealer’s house!!!” is the next glorious effort from the spineless toadies of the SMH.
So why is it astonishing coming out of Kelly’s mouth?
Just because he writes incredibly long, pompous and impenetrable paragraphs doesn’t make him serious.
That’s true. But the fact he would put such a totally irrational argument still surprises me. Someone of Paul Kelly’s experience must know he is writing nonsense, I suppose it’s just my naivety coming through, but I still find it unsettling when people who get paid stacks of money as an ‘expert’ write stuff they know is wrong.
“I still find it unsettling when people who get paid stacks of money as an ‘expert’ write stuff they know is wrong.”
They say, “if you pay peanuts you get monkeys”.
After watching “Insiders”, as I did this morning for my sins, I’m inclined to believe “if you pay “stacks” you get parrots”.
It certainly works for our media reps, anyway.
Maintain your naivety, Andrew, it is a delight that you are not bitter and twisted.
The presumption from the Murdoch hacks (not least Kelly) must be that if NSW did not have fixed terms, they would be able to force Rees to call an early election, through the sheer force of their will.
Mind you, I reckon Rees should find a way to go early, for the long term good of his party. If he goes now, the Labor Party will get destroyed, but no worse than the Labor Party has been destroyed in the past, both state and federal. Unsworth was destoroyed in 1988 and labor was back in two terms.
But if Rees waits until until 2011, Labor could end up with 35% of the TPP vote and a dozen seats in the parliament, if that. Never mind the condition of NSW public services, look at the state of the governing party. What’s it going to be like in a couple of years?
And there are federal implications. Rudd is due to go before Rees. While the voters do distinguish between state and federal governments, it is inconceivable that the state government won’t cost Rudd a couple of seats at least.
But if Rees goes before Rudd, the NSW voters can cathartically extract their vengeance on the Labor party and be free to vote federal on federal issues alone.
If I were Rudd, I would lean very heavily on Rees to contrive a way of going before Rudd does. If need be, cement the deal with a senate spot and a junior ministry.
Instead of sacking the government, can we sack the media?
As disappointing as things have been, the press campaign against the NSW Government is starting to reach the outer limits of ridiculous. Take today’s big scandal – that Rees moved his electorate office below a brothel. Rees had no knowledge about the brothel, there’s not even anything approaching a story here, but hey, The Daily Telegraph declared stacks on Labor years ago.
Remember that the Libs were so hopeless last time that they were reduced to a minority government after their first term and voted out after their second. Delivering services is a tough grind, and the Libs, with their anti-government ideology, would be much worse in delivering services.
Apparently the government should be sacked because of the sound policy idea of a congestion fee for people who live in the most expensive suburbs in Australia.
The Left should never – never – forget the lesson of the Howard years: the Liberals are no longer a centre-Right party and they govern ugly – very ugly.
This morning the Herald website has a big whinge about the fact that Sydney City council makes a lot of money off Parking Meters and Parking Fines. The NRMA – what a bunch of car-obsessed special-interest-pleading tossers they are – moan and whinge about the unfair practice of charging users to park in crowded congested streets. I know its not the NSW government, and I’m no friend to Clover Moore, but really, this tone of complaint about right and proper policy that emanates daily from the Herald and other Sydney media is getting very grating. Private cars should be *tolled* just to *enter* the city, FFS.
Sack the media.
Mercurius wrote:
“Hawke and Howard both made the timing of elections into their personal plaything. Isn’t that a “fraud on the public interest” too?”
Well, it may be, but it’s also a standard feature of the current Federal (Westminster) system. As Andrew E pointed out, Gough Whitlam called one election early (1974 Double Dissolution) hoping to gain a political advantage – stymied when his Gair wheeze was punctured. For centuries, British PMs, and for decades Australian PMs have chosen an election date to suit their party.
In Victoria, “fixed 4 years” still allows the Premier some flexibility. [No, I don't mean the flexibility of Bracksy, getting re-elected then p**sing off].
There is still a slower but ultimately satisfying modus operandi for NSW: a sequence of decisive by-election losses for the Rees mob (reluctant to call ‘em a Government).
With each loss, the Rees majority reduces, until finally a vote of no confidence is passed in the House. Perhaps hastened by a couple of Rees rodents jumping ship onto the cross benches just before the iceberg looms up in the mist?
That slow process may further hinder administration in NSW [if that were possible] but for interstate observers may provide a long, slow, agonising death watch entertainment.
Surely that would sell more newspapers, Doyen Kelly? Make a nice cup of tea, Mr Doyen: sit back and watch the operetta unfold. Plenty of NSWALP blood to be spilt before the fat lady waddles out onto the stage.
As numerous people have pointed out, Rees could only either sack himself or lose a vote of confidence on the floor. Which applies whether the term is fixed or not. A government as certain to lose whenever the next election occurs, wouldn’t be rushing to the polls, fixed terms or not. Despite “the best efforts” of the MSM.
I agree with Andrew that 4 year terms are too long, but like many NSW residents the likelyhood that Fatty O’Barrell’s mob will rule come 2011 doesn’t seem a more appealing notion than the current dingbats. And nor is the MSM interested in discussing the necessary reform to process to improve governance. Witness Saturday’s Herald which led the News Review section with a glorious whine about the North Shore being done over by evil Sussex Street buffoons, while burying Rick Feneley’s piece on the corrupt structures of Labor. Want better participatory democracy, chappies of the MSM? How about we start with multi-candidate electorates and fairer systems of proportional representation?
Interesting discussion.
I received an oddly relevant letter in the post the other day. It was in a yellowed envelope printed with “NSW State Executive, Australian Labor Party”—a body that has not existed for many years—typewritten, and with a pre-decimal kangaroo-and-map stamp.
It reads,
[It's signed here in black ink]
I’m not sure what to do with it.
Liam,
why not fast forward to 1991 and show it to that nice Mr Keating as he prepares to take on the mantle of PM? He may be interested in the views of Jack. With stout resolve he may ward off the yapping of those Libearl stooges opposite: Peacock, Downer, Hewson, and that discredited eminence grise, little Johnny Howard.
You might know, Ambi, that the two men were surprisingly close, when the Premier was very old, and the future PM very young.
Gough Whitlam said that Keating unusually sought out the company of old men. Rex Connor was another one.
Yes, Liam. And what would you say the young Paul gained from their friendship? Knowledge of labour history, only?
And Kelly’s stuff about the unions is just so much blather. I’m amazed that Tories still blame everything on the unions – those sinister faceless men. Tell me one major confrontation with the Parliamentary wing that unions have won in the last 30 years.
The right-wing intelligentsia must be able to write this kind of stuff almost on autopilot. When are they going to get bored by it? A new economic age has come crashing down on us and it’s time for a new generation of commentators that reflects that age. Doctrinaire free-marketeers have had their day.
Update: Andrew Bartlett on the case for three year terms.