Professor Anne Twomey joins Leith Forrest after Anthony Albanese said he is in favour of four-year fixed terms.
Listen live on the FIVEAA Player.
Follow us on Facebook, X and Instagram.
Subscribe on YouTube
We talked about Anthony Albanesi earlier in the show. Interesting little story bubbling away channeling the US. Albo likes the idea of a four year fixed term. So I'm focused on governing. That's what I'm.
Focused on, and I'll leave the speculation to others. I have said repeatedly and I repeat again today, I support four year terms and I wish there was four year fixed terms.
Is it a good idea? Yes? Or no? Should we channel what they do in the US and give a rock solid four year term to our leaders? Professor Antomy is a constitutional law expert, joins us this morning. Professor, thank you for your time.
You're welcome.
When you hear the PM say this, do you think it's a good idea?
Oh? Look, I think there are actually some good points to it. I mean we have it at the state level, I think in almost all jurisdictions, and there are good reasons. So, for example, if you're a bureaucrat, if you know when the election date is going to be, you can organize things so that you don't end up having sue things during the caretaker period or whatever. You can organize life better. If you're a political party, you can organize, Betty. You know exactly when the election is going to be. You can budget for your campaigning, you can book your advertising, you can have your candidates or prepared for a certain time. They know when to take lead from their job to campaign or whatever. So it's a lot thearer having six terms. But the other slip side of course of this is if you're going to try and do it, you need a referendum to do it, and as we all know, referendums are very hard to part.
Yeah. Wow, it's interesting that he would put this thought bubble out and Peter dunn't understandably is how politics works. He's come out and smashed it on the head and said, well, are you forward? Are you against it? Give us an actual answer. So do you think of this stage, why would he in your expert opinion, professor, what do you think you would throw this out there? Do you think it's to create that conversation to see gauge you know, the interest and test the waters.
Yeah, well, look, it's obviously any way it could succeed as if you had rock solid support from the opposition as well. So look, six four year terms is an advantage to both sides of government. It allows governments to govern more and campaign less, which is generally a good thing, and so it's got an upside for the coalitions as well. So maybe he's putting that out there in the hope that they might come forward and be cooperative. But the problem with this particular one is that raises all thoughts of other nasty little issues. So if you change the House of rep turn four years fixed, what do you do about the Senate Because at the moment we've got half the Senate with sorry six year terms the Senators with half of the Senate going out every three years. Now that sort of works in tandem with the three year term of the House of Reps. So you can have your half Senate election together with your house's Reps election. Doesn't always completely work. For the last twenty thirty years, it has worked fine. If you change it to four years terms and the House of Reps, you got a dilemma. Do you change the Senate eight year term which is too long? Frankly, do you change it to four year terms? Well I tried that that can in a referendum in nineteen eighty eight that got absolutely clovered. Or do you just leave it so that every now and again you'll end up having a separate half centate's election, which would just make voters extra cranky and allow them to kick the government.
In the heads.
So no one wants.
That one either, That's right, because you have a federal study problem. Yeah, that sounds like an absolute mess. What about globally, professor, where are Australia? Are we the lone ranger on this when it comes to non fixed terms? What's the rest of the world doing.
Look, I don't have absolute statistics here, but my general understanding is, first of all, that most jurisdictions have longer terms, so three is actually relatively short. Most go for four or five. That's the most common, and it is more likely that other places have six terms as well, because when it's flexible, you do have that, you know, uncertainty. It does give an unfair advantage to the Prime Minister of the day who calls an election for when it suits them, all that sort of thing. So yeah, as a general principle, other countries do take four year terms than usually say six terms, and usually four or five years.
It's interesting with our audience, professor, because a lot of people don't like our current PM, and he's unpopular, so they hate this idea. But I do wonder if if we had a popular PM at the time and they floated, whether that idea would be more appealing to them or Yeah.
It often is colored by your experience of the day. So you know, at times when people think, oh goodness, this is a terrible government. I want to get rid of it as soon as possible. They don't want to have to wait four years. Yes, okay. But in other times when things are going relatively well and you don't want another political campaign, you know, you don't want to have to go through all that sort of carry on and drama, and you think maybe it would be better if we could actually let governments that have at least two years of governing in between sort of you know, the lead up to election on one side and the period after an election on the other. There's a lot of good sense to it.
Can I ask you your expert opinion? Do you have any idea? Do you play along with friends and colleagues when you think the election will be held.
Oh I'm gassing. In fact, I did a video on this on my Constitutional Clarion YouTube channel for anyone who wants to check it all out. Yes, but because of timing with Easter and the Western Australian election, most likely is it will probably be in May. Okay, but I have no inside knowledge chance, So you can pay as much attention to that as you want.
And you think you mentioned the referendum, you think that's almost done and dusted that whole idea. Have we been burnt too much by the result of the voice.
Yeah, I think that it would take a long time before any government wants to go back to to do a referendum, and I think they certainly wouldn't do it without having rock solid bipartisan and you know, I'm completely across the board agreement on something or other. So it has to be very uncontroversial, something that no one's going to run a scampaign, test scare campaign again before anyone wants to head back into constitutional form territory.
Well, you know what, it's good column space. If nothing else, professor gives us something to talk about on the radio, which well, especially.
In the quiet time of summer, I know I've had contact from op ed editors who are desperate for content. It has been helpful in that regard.
Yet well done, Thank you so much for your time. Just repeat again for us. How can we find out and follow what you're up to?
There Ah Constitutional Clarion on YouTube, I do talks about various constitutional issues of the day, and in fact I'm going to be doing one later today on the six four year term. Business opining On wants to know more.
Thank you so much for your time. I appreciate a happy new year, professor, Thank you all the best and to me the professor of constitutional law, our expert on Olbow's four year term idea