Paying for elections every three years is worth it

Imagine another year of this government?
 

There’s an old joke about divorces. Do you know why they’re so expensive? Because they’re worth it.

Elections are no different. Mr Albanese wants four-year fixed terms. Apparently, Mr Dutton used to want four-year terms but then he didn’t, and now he does again.

Four-year terms might make their job easier. It might also save us some $60 billion in the next two decades. But do voters really want the federal government to have four years to mess with us? Or is it worth $3 billion each year to make our politicians work harder for us?

Writing in the Unfiltered newsletter, Alexandra Marshall had this to say:

What do you reckon – give politicians an extra year in power? Albanese and Dutton are keen for four-year fixed terms, and it would save $60 billion over two decades, but Michael de Percy writes with a warning when it comes to extending the lifespan of the federal government. What do you think, is the risk worth the saving?

Writing in the Morning Double Shot newsletter, Terry Barnes had this to say:

A recent think tank paper suggested that Australia moving from three to four-year electoral terms would save taxpayers $60 billion in direct and indirect costs over 20 years. Michael de Percy will have none of that. Three-year terms are more democratic he says. ‘If our governments really suck, they can be ended sooner’, pointing out that four-year lower house terms means eight-year Senate terms for all the crossbench fruit loops in the unrepresentative swill. But four-year terms also mean more reform and less playing to the peanut gallery, and some relief from the endless campaigning of three-year terms. If the Constitution must be amended on terms, why not make it a fixed four-year term for both Reps and Senate? That at least would keep the riff-raff factor down, especially if, at the same time, the nexus is broken between the size of the two Houses, so the Senate can be cut down to size and proportional representation with too-low quotas doesn’t throw up a clutch of numpties.

My latest in The Spectator Australia, Paying for elections every three years is worth it.

Comments

Post a Comment