tag:theconversation.com,2011:/global/topics/steve-bracks-4771/articlesSteve Bracks – The Conversation2014-10-26T19:09:03Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/333652014-10-26T19:09:03Z2014-10-26T19:09:03ZRebalancing government in Australia to save our federation<p>Federation in 1901 is now the middle point between 2014 and the arrival of the First Fleet in 1788. Despite this, most views of federation, if Australians have one at all, are probably shaped by its 19th-century imagery – dusty, whiskery elderly men in overly formal dress – rather than its 20th-century outcomes.</p>
<p>This is a shame. Behind the federation process in the 19th century was the political courage to undertake radical reform in pursuit of the opportunities created by new political and economic structures, as well as broader strategic concerns about Australia’s place in the world. </p>
<p>Despite being conceived in the 19th century, federation was a child of the 20th century. In a new report released today by the <a href="http://www.ceda.com.au/">Committee for Economic Development of Australia</a> (CEDA), I argue our challenge is to think of the next stage in its development and the opportunities that a new wave of reforms could create.</p>
<h2>The historic benefits of reform</h2>
<p>Federation has delivered enormous economic benefits. In an <a href="http://www.caf.gov.au/Documents/AustraliasFederalFuture.pdf">insightful analysis</a>, professors Anne Twomey and Glenn Withers usefully summarised the benefits as the “six Cs”:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Checks on power: an effective federation protects the individual from an overly powerful government and ensures greater scrutiny of government action.</p></li>
<li><p>Choice in voting options: this ranges from the time-honoured tradition of people voting for one party at the national level and another at the state level to the choice to move between states.</p></li>
<li><p>Customisation of policies: federations allow policy customisation to meet the needs of people and communities across a large and increasingly diverse nation.</p></li>
<li><p>Co-operation: a joint approach to reform is encouraged. This means that proposals tend to be more measured and better scrutinised, which ultimately gives reform proposals greater legitimacy and potential for bipartisan support.</p></li>
<li><p>Competition: federations create incentives between states and territories to improve performance, increase efficiency and prevent complacency. Withers and Twomey showed that despite having an extra layer of government, federations have proportionately fewer public servants and lower public spending than unitary states. The total workforce employed in the entire public sector <a href="http://www.actu.org.au/Images/Dynamic/attachments/7837/Jobs%20Report%20-%20February%202013.pdf">has declined</a> over 30 years from 25% per cent to 16%.</p></li>
<li><p>Creativity: successful innovations in one state can be picked up by other states and policy failures avoided. For example, casemix funding, which has revolutionised the funding of hospitals, began in Victoria in the early 1990s and gradually extended to almost every other state and to the Commonwealth. In 2011, the savings were estimated at A$4 billion a year for an <a href="http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/22399F9147ACEF5DCA257BF0001D3A52/$File/Final_Report_November_2009.pdf">estimated annual expenditure</a> of about $10 million in maintaining the casemix system.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>To that list, you could also add Withers and Twomey’s assessments that:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Federalism increased Australia’s prosperity by $4507 per head in 2006 dollars. This amount could be almost doubled if Australia’s federal system was more financially decentralised.</p></li>
<li><p>Countries with federal systems have tended to outperform unitary states over the last 50 years, even allowing for the intrinsic difficulties of comparison.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>It bears reiterating that the cost of government, measured as a share of gross domestic product (GDP), is <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932389873">lower in Australia</a> than in almost all comparable countries. It is reasonable to suppose that federation is at least partially responsible for successive Australian governments being able to offer relatively high levels of services to citizens at an internationally competitive cost.</p>
<p>Significantly, this cost is lower than in many unitary states, including the United Kingdom and New Zealand, giving the lie to the idea that state-level government is an intrinsic drag on an economy.</p>
<h2>The current state of progress</h2>
<p>My proposals are not based on the failure of Australia’s Federation. On the contrary, they are based on the opportunities that a new practice of government, within current political structures, could create.</p>
<p>In my career, I have seen this new practice of government emerge in both theory and practice. </p>
<p>One of the most striking aspects of the major economic and public sector reforms of the 1980s and 1990s was the degree to which they were driven through federation processes. Under Liberal and Labor premiers, Victoria advocated for, and helped drive, successive waves of the National Reform Agenda (NRA). The NRA established broad, measurable, strategic outcomes for state governments. </p>
<p>This was the basis for massively simplifying specific purpose payments from Commonwealth governments. These dropped from more than 90 to just six, with states having responsibility and a financial incentive for improving their performance. Australia owes Victorian premiers Jeff Kennett and Steve Bracks and NSW premier Nick Greiner a great debt for their work in pushing the Commonwealth into adopting the NRA. </p>
<p>The recent decision to <a href="http://blogs.crikey.com.au/croakey/2014/06/12/on-the-demise-of-the-coag-reform-council-who-will-hold-governments-accountable-for-health-outcomes/">abolish</a> the Council of Australian Governments Reform Council, which monitors states’ progress towards NRA goals, is a very retrograde step. The states will legitimately feel that they cannot rely on the Commonwealth to keep its word.</p>
<p>Central to this new practice of government is the idea of subsidiarity or devolution. Central governments should perform only those tasks that cannot be more effectively performed at an intermediate or more local level.</p>
<p>In operation, subsidiarity suggests that we should operate systems with associated political accountability through levels of government where the expertise lies. If state governments operate schools, for example, they should have the revenue to do that, without confusing the public through multiple levels of accountability. It also suggests that in the human capital area, the Commonwealth should confine itself to high-level regulation, the payment of benefits (such as pensions) and the publication of data on performance (such as My School).</p>
<p>In essence, we need to shatter the illusion that the Commonwealth is the “Swiss army pocketknife” of government in Australia. The state of aged-care services is a graphic example of the dangers of believing in that illusion. Conversely, the benefits of a subsidiarity approach are increasingly clear.</p>
<p>As already noted, casemix funding has substantially reduced growth in the cost of hospital services. Even the most cursory glance at the United States, which uses a market approach to providing health care, shows that Australia’s outcomes are achieved at considerably lower cost and with arguably greater social equity. The vast disparity in cost in the US between the same procedures done in different hospitals is <a href="http://www.vox.com/2014/6/11/5798558/four-maps-that-show-the-insanity-of-american-health-care-prices">well-documented</a>. This is hard to reconcile with the evangelical view of market efficiency advanced by some in Australia.</p>
<p>In education, states like Victoria have made a concerted effort to provide school councils and principals with greater autonomy. Debate continues about the exact role of increased autonomy in improving school outcomes, but a recent Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission <a href="http://clearinghouse.aitsl.edu.au/Citations/bb6e1eb2-970c-4121-b3b4-a27300c1b5c4">report</a> found that what was crucial was the extent to which:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… local decision making can activate the known drivers of educational improvement, including the quality of teaching and leadership.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>As a former director general of education, I can endorse assertion. It is also hard to believe that increased centralisation is the answer to meeting the diversity of needs of 880,000 students across 2200 schools.</p>
<p>Many of the reforms in Victoria were closely linked to international thinking from researchers like <a href="http://books.google.com.au/books/about/Reinventing_Government.html?id=7qyp_EcJuZoC">Osborne and Gaebler</a>. Their work was deeply influential on the Clinton administration in the US.</p>
<p>Three further observations support the benefits of subsidiarity:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The Productivity Commission’s Blue Book, which compares the cost of service delivery across state jurisdictions, has shown that in Victoria, where devolution has been a long-term, bipartisan objective, per capita cost of <a href="http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/132339/rogs-2014-volumee-chapter10.pdf">hospitals</a> and <a href="http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/132306/rogs-2014-volumeb-chapter4.pdf">schools</a> has been lower than in most other states.</p></li>
<li><p>In aiming to improve outcomes for Indigenous Australians, which is one of Australia’s greatest systemic public policy failures, the greatest opportunities lie in the devolution of decision-making and accountability to local communities. They are best-placed to plan and shape service delivery in their local area.</p></li>
<li><p>Commonwealth departments have lost all capacity for effective interventions in large-scale service-delivery systems, such as schools and hospitals. </p></li>
</ol>
<h2>Opportunities to crack hardest policy nuts</h2>
<p>It is possible to see the stars aligning to use the subsidiarity principle to crack more of the hardest public policy nuts, including the long-term funding of transport infrastructure, schools and health care.</p>
<p>The Grattan Institute’s <a href="http://grattan.edu.au/home/australian-perspectives">recent reports</a> on the long-term budget challenges facing all levels of government describe the increasingly unfavourable economic headwinds that the Australian economy will face. In particular, they present two unpalatable truths that are evidence of a burning platform requiring a leap towards subsidiarity.</p>
<p>First, though not uncontested, increases in Australian government spending are being driven above all by health spending. This stems not from an ageing population but from the fact that people are seeing doctors more often, having more tests and operations, and taking more prescription drugs. </p>
<p>Second, claims of a “massive infrastructure gap” are not borne out by analysis of state and territory budgets. These have spent more on infrastructure in each of the past five years than in any comparable year since the Australian Bureau of Statistics first measured infrastructure spending in the 1980s.</p>
<p>We now have a conservative national government that is rooted in a philosophy that has traditionally been sceptical of centralisation. New information technology systems and analysis can now give political leaders greater confidence in local-level accountability. Internal government research shows that citizens intrinsically prefer, and rate more favourably, services that are planned and delivered at the local level.</p>
<p>Recent decisions of the High Court suggest that the judicial branch of government is also increasingly sceptical of centralisation. The decision in Williams No. 116 hints that the remedies for judicial dissatisfaction with the Commonwealth using executive authority to fund programs may go beyond a simple requirement for debate in parliament. Twomey <a href="http://www.vic.ipaa.org.au/news/january-2013/what-now-after-williams">has suggested</a> that one of the broader ramifications may be that the Commonwealth is forced to take a less “coercive” approach to negotiating with the states in areas such as education funding.</p>
<p>As I have <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8500.12005/abstract">noted elsewhere</a>, it is also the case that our centralised system is becoming increasingly sclerotic. In part this is because of excessive ministerial office interference in service delivery and rapidly oscillating extremes in views about ministerial accountability. </p>
<p>One remedy is to be far more explicit about the division in accountability between ministers and public servants. That should include making ministerial advisers accountable in the same ways as public servants. Putting subsidiarity into practice also puts the “cookie jar” of service delivery further out of reach of advisers who often have no expertise in service delivery.</p>
<p>But the fundamental obstacle to change in our federation has been one of the world’s most severe cases of <a href="https://theconversation.com/renewing-federalism-what-are-the-solutions-to-vertical-fiscal-imbalance-31422">vertical fiscal imbalance</a>. Since the Second World War this has been our federation’s Achilles’ heel. Among other side-effects, it has encouraged state governments to develop what might be called a <a href="http://quoteinvestigator.com/category/willie-sutton/">“Willie Sutton”</a> mentality in which the Commonwealth is seen as the only source of revenue.</p>
<p>The truth is that the states prefer to go to the Commonwealth, rather than handle the more challenging task of gaining community support for generating the revenues needed to support the services they provide. This is really a matter of choice, not constitutional necessity. As the recent Commission of Audit highlighted, it is possible to imagine alternative funding systems that would shift this mindset.</p>
<h2>How might subsidiarity work in practice?</h2>
<p>The following examples are predicated on subsidiarity. In implementation, they would meet our growing demands for infrastructure and services, and reinvigorate our federation for the 21st century.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pPuSheTv3TI?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Terry Moran discusses the proposals raised in this article at the CEDA launch.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>First, as the <a href="https://theconversation.com/commission-of-audit-report-released-experts-respond-26177">Commission of Audit</a> has suggested, the Commonwealth should walk its own talk on schools by assigning responsibility for schooling to the states and transferring an agreed share of income tax revenues to them for that purpose. This would also clean out the programmatic confetti that Commonwealth ministers have traditionally sprinkled across the education sector, to its great detriment. </p>
<p>There is also considerable merit in the broadly mooted proposal to increase the rate and coverage of the GST and transfer the extra revenue to the states to support growing demands on public hospitals.</p>
<p>Second, states should be encouraged to develop a land tax, or property charge, with a broader base of applicability but much lower rate than currently applies. Substantial portions of this new revenue stream should be hypothecated to transport improvements, particularly public transport.</p>
<p>Third, as the Productivity Commission <a href="http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/137280/infrastructure-volume1.pdf">cautiously suggested</a>, state governments could extend road-use charging to existing freeways, highways and major arterial roads within cities. This revenue would be hypothecated towards building and maintaining these classes of roads and availability-based payments to PPP consortia where needed for new roads. Fuel taxes collected by the Commonwealth could augment this road funding.</p>
<p>The community is legitimately angry about the idea of paying more for roads, when the original intention was that fuel tax would go towards this function. Transferring most of these tax revenues to the states could be part of a historic settlement to partition government roles in transport in favour of state and local governments. It would roll back the current process of the Commonwealth second-guessing other governments.</p>
<p>Having each major city pay this combination of property and road charges into its own funding pool would be a substantial step towards providing the infrastructure our cities need. These cities generate an enormous percentage of national wealth but their taxes effectively disappear into consolidated revenue at the Commonwealth level. </p>
<p>This approach would also provide the resources and legitimacy to fill one of Australia’s most pressing gaps in governance: city-wide planning of the sort that statutory bodies like the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works once provided.</p>
<h2>Premiers can make history again</h2>
<p>None of this would be an easy political sell. It would need leadership capable of building a comprehensive political strategy, and a realistic communication plan that would help ordinary citizens understand that strategy. It would, however, play to what should be the strength of politicians: their ability to build alliances towards strategic objectives, rather than as micro-managing CEOs.</p>
<p>Devolution is a strategy that, in theory at least, has the capacity to create bipartisan consensus. As the reforms of the 1980s and 1990s show, this is a prerequisite for political acceptance and avoiding rollback by subsequent governments. As former prime minister John Howard remarked recently, successful reform requires the community to accept that it is fair and in the national interest.</p>
<p>This would be a major change in Australia’s practice of government. It would mean, among other things, a dramatically different role for the public service at the Commonwealth level. In modern terminology it would probably even be called “disruptive” or “transformational”. </p>
<p>It is striking that some of the core players in this transformation would be the state premiers, the same group who were central to the process that culminated 114 years ago. What we need now is a group of premiers who are interested in “saving” the Federation that their political predecessors helped create. They would do this by being the conduit through which more power and accountability flows into the local governance structures that states and local government are best suited to build and support.</p>
<p>For many years, the tide of funding and authorisation has flowed towards Canberra. As economic headwinds shift, this tide is turning and business as usual will increasingly struggle to make headway. </p>
<p>As Shakespeare reminds us in Julius Caesar, his play about political leaders contemplating change, a tide “taken at the flood, leads on to fortune. Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries”.</p>
<p>We need political leadership prepared to ride with that tide.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>The CEDA report _<a href="http://www.ceda.com.au/research-and-policy/policy-priorities/federalism">A Federation for the 21st Century</a></em> will be launched by the Hon Nick Greiner AC, The Hon Justice Duncan Kerr Chev LH and Professor Terry Moran AC today in Sydney._</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/33365/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Terry Moran has worked in the senior levels of the Victorian, Queensland and Commonwealth public services.</span></em></p>Federation in 1901 is now the middle point between 2014 and the arrival of the First Fleet in 1788. Despite this, most views of federation, if Australians have one at all, are probably shaped by its…Terry Moran, Vice-Chancellor's Professorial Fellow, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/127162013-03-11T19:35:18Z2013-03-11T19:35:18ZIn Conversation: Steve Bracks and Stephanie Brookes<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/21094/original/dchwty55-1362714843.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Former Victorian Premier Steve Bracks is one of the rare breed of politician to have left office on his own terms and retaining widespread public goodwill.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP Image/Julian Smith</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In politics, timing is everything and few have managed their exit from public office with the grace and dignity of former Victorian Premier Steve Bracks.</p>
<p>So it is with a particularly bitter irony - another hallmark of the political game - that this In Conversation took place on the day that saw another Victorian Premier, Ted Baillieu, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2013/03/07/3709830.htm">leaving his post</a>, albeit in a very different manner from that of Bracks.</p>
<p>Despite his extraordinary political network, not even Steve Bracks could have known that afternoon that Denis Napthine, his opponent across the dispatch box from 1999 to 2002, was soon to belatedly take office in Victoria.</p>
<p>But there is more to political life than simply holding elected office. After leaving representative politics on his own terms, Bracks forged a career in business with construction industry super fund CBUS, while also working within the Australian Labor Party to enact the kinds of reforms he believes are necessary if it is to have an electable future.</p>
<p>In this In Conversation, Bracks delves beyond the day to day “horse race” aspects that bedevil so much political coverage to discuss how politics works at a more elemental level: the need for integrity to underpin successful communication of messages, the corrosive effect of the modern media cycle, his political inspirations and why he doesn’t have a Twitter account.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/in-conversation-steve-bracks-full-transcript-12717">Click here</a> for a full transcript</p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Stephanie Brookes:</strong> What makes a great communicator? What makes a politician a great communicator?</p>
<p><strong>Steve Bracks:</strong> I think there’s several things. One is understanding and believing in what you’re saying. There’s no use just having an understanding without having a deep belief in what you’re about to communicate. That’s very important because you won’t come across effectively if you are simply mouthing words trying to persuade, acting as if you would like people to believe it, but not believing it yourself. So I think a sense of belief in what you do is very, very important and therefore you can persuade and argue the case on that basis.</p>
<p>I think secondly, understanding who you’re talking to. I used to always have a rule that if I was talking to say a press conference that goes out to every Victorian, you’re talking to the media through the microphones, but you’re not talking to the media and microphones you’re talking to people.</p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Stephanie Brookes:</strong> How do we have these bigger conversations in a space where things are moving so quickly?</p>
<p><strong>Steve Bracks:</strong> I’m not against people having Twitter. I think social media is liberating in lots of ways, it’s great for democracy, I think it’s good. If I was there now I would want to manage and be on top of it, of course, and be much more accessible as a result, I think it’s a good part of it. I think the bad part is that you feel you have to respond every minute of the day. Does it matter if a premier or prime minister doesn’t have a view on Oprah Winfrey if she’s coming to Australia? But you’re there, you’ve got to be accessible, you’ve got to talk about it. Does it matter? Not really. That’s my point really. The only thing I can think of in handling the relentless 24-media cycle is to do your own thing and to be out there on content when you have content to be out there on. I think that’s probably the mistake people make, is my preliminary view anyway.</p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Stephanie Brookes:</strong> So how do we make space then? I see concerns in the United States about the divisiveness of political debate and the kind of adversarial nature of some of that in politics. Is that something you worry about in Australia?</p>
<p><strong>Steve Bracks:</strong> No I don’t worry about that. I don’t have a problem with adversarial politics, I think it’s good for contestability and I would expect nothing less. This is nothing new, it’s a joke really to analyse this as something new. In the 1950s in Australia, post war, we had governments that were brought down on adversarial politics, between the Queensland government and split of the Labor party. We talk about schisms and differences now, not really, not as big, there’s always been strong philosophical differences. I’d argue the opposite; I’d say the philosophical differences are probably a bit less. There’s been a merge to the middle much more than there used to be. I think that’s not a fair analysis and is it a bad thing that you have robust and strong debate about issues and differences? No, I don’t think it’s a bad thing. I think it’s a pretty poor that it’s just simply about nothing. But I think it’s a common view, “why can’t they just get together for the good of the nation?” sort of a top of the head view. “Wouldn’t it be much nicer if they all just agreed?”</p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Stephanie Brookes:</strong> You’ve also spoken a lot about multicultural issues and that as a priority. How do you see that playing out?</p>
<p><strong>Steve Bracks:</strong> We’re a bit different in Victoria, aren’t we? We understand, the others don’t as much. I’m a strong advocate of multiculturalism, I think it’s enriched us, it’s been a great benefit to Australia and I would hate to see for short-term political aims that we jeopardise the very thing that’s a great asset to us.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/12716/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephanie Brookes does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In politics, timing is everything and few have managed their exit from public office with the grace and dignity of former Victorian Premier Steve Bracks. So it is with a particularly bitter irony - another…Stephanie Brookes, Lecturer, School of Journalism, Australian and Indigenous Studies, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/127172013-03-11T19:35:13Z2013-03-11T19:35:13ZIn Conversation: Steve Bracks full transcript<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/21095/original/84rg65mx-1362715661.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Former Victoria Premier Steve Bracks was one of Australia's most successful and longest serving premiers. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Alan Porritt/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><strong>Stephanie Brookes:</strong> We’re here for The Conversation, I’m from the University of Melbourne Media and Communications program and I’m here in Conversation with former Victoria premier Steve Bracks. Thanks for joining me.</p>
<p>So I want to start really big, what makes a great communicator? What makes a politician a great communicator?</p>
<p><strong>Steve Bracks:</strong> I think there’s several things. One is understanding and believing in what you’re saying. There’s no use just having an understanding without having a deep belief in what you’re about to communicate. That’s very important because you won’t come across effectively if you are simply mouthing words trying to persuade, acting as if you would like people to believe it, but not believing it yourself. So I think a sense of belief in what you do is very, very important and therefore you can persuade and argue the case on that basis.</p>
<p>I think secondly understanding who you’re talking to. I used to always have a rule that if I was talking to say a press conference that goes out to every Victorian, you’re talking to the media through the microphones, but you’re not talking to the media and microphones you’re talking to people. So imagine what you’re talking about, it might be about education, it might be students staying in school longer to year 12, therefore having a better chance in life to succeed and move on to other opportunities. You should be addressing your comments as if you were talking to either the students or young people or their parents about that issue. All the media is, is the intermediary. So a belief, a conviction, being able to persuade. Of course the techniques of that I think are understood, but also understanding who you’re talking to is very, very important.</p>
<p><strong>Stephanie Brookes:</strong> That idea of understanding what the people you’re talking to care about, understanding what drives them. Is that something that you connect from your own experience? What drives me, my priorities, my values and the priorities and values of the people I’m speaking to? Is that important?</p>
<p><strong>Steve Bracks:</strong> That is important, but what is also important is the reason that you are there. Let’s say in public life, in a leadership position, you’re there for a reason, you’re there because you want to achieve things. If you’re there for any other reason you shouldn’t be there. If you want to achieve and do things then being able to understand what you want to achieve and how to describe it in an empathetic way to the people that receive the message is very, very important. But I think that I would weight your beliefs and your convictions higher than I would weight any other part in the effort and communication. Empathy is important and crucial in getting across an issue. If you don’t believe it, it’s an interesting thing people will see through it. I think people are seeing through politicians more generally now when they look like they’re acting rather than talking about an issue they believe in. So they look like they’ve been to Politics 101. They’ll answer your question by saying what they want to do not what you want them to answer and therefore repeating something they think by repetition will get resonance. If they don’t have the belief first then all that is absolutely and totally useless. You have to know what you want to achieve and therefore being able to communicate is very important.</p>
<p><strong>Stephanie Brookes:</strong> The idea of people seeing through it is very interesting to me.</p>
<p><strong>Steve Bracks:</strong> People do.</p>
<p><strong>Stephanie Brookes:</strong> I feel like watching a lot of what is happening at the moment, in federal politics and state politics, I wonder sometimes if this is a bit of moment of change. I watch the coverage of federal political leaders in <a href="http://theconversation.com/julia-gillards-western-sydney-road-show-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-12605">western Sydney campaigning</a>, going out to Rooty Hill RSL, and I wonder whether those techniques are no longer as effective?</p>
<p><strong>Steve Bracks:</strong> When I first entered politics the technique was, it doesn’t matter what the question is you only answer and repeat. Repetition was important as people only understand after the 15th time it was said. They were the sort of rules of engagement at the time. I think at the time people see through that and they want to see what we’re actually about. If you’re describing an issue they want to see your passion, your commitment, your beliefs are coming through. If they’re not I think they’ll see through it. And that’s just because people are very used to the communication methods that are there more broadly. They’re there very broadly, every day in the lounge room, they can see through it now. As you know the body doesn’t lie either, they can see through the non-verbal cues pretty well as well, they’ll feel it, they’ll see it, they’ll understand it.</p>
<p>So I don’t know if it’s a moment in time. I think that would be a bit too simplistic to say we’ve snapped over now because of this current crop of politicians but I think it’s been a developmental issue over a period of time and I think it’s been coming for some time.</p>
<p><strong>Stephanie Brookes:</strong> So if you think back to 1999 and <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-07-27/steve-bracks-quiet-trailblazer/2516008">winning the election</a>, that was considered now to be a very successful election campaign, if you think back then is there something for you when you remember it that you think “I got that right, I did this thing right” and everything flowed from that? Is there a kind of moment you remember in that way?</p>
<p><strong>Steve Bracks:</strong> Well the first thing I did right was deciding to become leader. And I’m not boasting myself on that, I’m just saying that was important. That was a very difficult decision. It’s not easy to be leader of your organization or party and that was a very seminal moment. But I became leader with a plan and that is to not to simply bait my opponent, and in that case it was Jeff Kennett, by being the last paragraph of everything he did, commenting on everything he did. But to have a set of beliefs of what I thought was better for Victoria. It was the lead up to being leader where I developed a set of ideas of things that could take the party forward, different to what it was. And that is we could have a proposition of doing things that the previous, or then government wasn’t doing. And that is improving health education, public safety, developing the regions and not treating them as second-class citizens and restoring democracy.</p>
<p>Now they seem ordinary now and yes every state government should be doing it but you know in 1999 it wasn’t being done. It was largely bred with circumstance, it was the colour of politics not the substance of it and it wasn’t about improving services or equal opportunity no matter where you were or where you lived or openness in government and having the opportunity to not be seen as excluded from it. So these were propositions, which are now embedded, so I would see that as a success. The very commitments we made have now become the base stock politics in the debate overall so the whole paradigm shifted. So I would rate that as an important success.</p>
<p>I had a lot of criticism from the media at the time as news leader, another leader to sacrifice on the altar of Jeff Kennett who was written large, travelling very well. “Why’s he talking about boring issues, like health, education, public safety and the regions? We live in Fitzroy what are they? Why doesn’t he just have a go at Kennett and get into them and whatever they’re saying.” But I knew I was speaking not to them but to the public and I knew it would take a long time but it would shift in the end because people wanted better education, better opportunities for students after significant education cuts. They wanted to ensure they had better access to health systems after years and years of cuts into the health system. They didn’t want 10% or 12% unemployment in Bendigo or Geelong they wanted to be as affluent, have similar opportunities for getting jobs as someone in central Melbourne did. And they disliked the fact that if they criticized the government they were seen as disloyal and un-Victorian. So I stayed the course, despite the media criticism, and in the last couple of weeks there was a big swing to us and we won government.</p>
<p><strong>Stephanie Brookes:</strong> Media criticism, it’s really interesting because you keep it in your mind, don’t you?</p>
<p><strong>Steve Bracks:</strong> Well the media has its impacts, it’s not a lot of original thought. Usually they’re followers of one or two leaders, there’s the federal rounds, the state rounds. And that’s understandable because they’ve got to get instant gratification from a story of that day, and scandals always rate better, and they want “he said, she said”. It’s an easy package to put on and that’s why they all tend to follow. I’m not overly critical, I understand the profession and it’s a very noble profession but I don’t think it’s the only prism in getting across your message to the public. If you don’t have a good message, that’s really important.</p>
<p><strong>Stephanie Brookes:</strong> Would it be harder now, do you think, to campaign?</p>
<p><strong>Steve Bracks:</strong> I think it would be harder, yes. The 24-hour media cycle didn’t start until I left in 2007. So I could have a story in the news, printed up the day before, you bounce off that the next day, you could react to other issues that happen during the day and you’d be on the evening news so therefore there are one or two points where you’re able to say I dealt with the media that day. And now it’s relentless, you’ve got <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/abcnews24/">ABC News 24</a>, <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-reporting/index.html">Fox</a> doing 24-hour news cycle. </p>
<p>I can’t tell you how many times ABC 24 contacted me when they were setting up, “could you come and comment about this and this?”, because they’re just desperate for content. Even though nothing was happening and they were commenting on the same issue they just wanted a slightly different angle to it. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/21098/original/tsz7rs7h-1362716349.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/21098/original/tsz7rs7h-1362716349.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=910&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21098/original/tsz7rs7h-1362716349.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=910&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21098/original/tsz7rs7h-1362716349.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=910&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21098/original/tsz7rs7h-1362716349.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1143&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21098/original/tsz7rs7h-1362716349.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1143&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21098/original/tsz7rs7h-1362716349.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1143&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Anthony Agius</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>I think it would be very difficult and I think it’s not very clear on how governments and oppositions are going to handle this in the future but we know the way they’re handling it now is not suitable. I don’t think feeding the beast is the way to handle it, I don’t think we need to comment on everything. I think you need to comment on things you want to do and achieve or if you have to answer questions because accountability is important but to simply comment on everything that’s happening in a 24-hour news cycle is just unproductive. And the utility value of government is just worn out bit by bit because of that and you’ll see much more volatility as a result of that if you just respond to that 24-hour cycle. And not much really happens in 24 hours, some of the analysis you see in the papers where you have commentators giving opinion every day. What’s happened today compared to yesterday? What analysis are you doing? What is the trend that you’re actually examining? It’s very, very hard to work out. Yet that’s happening, this is the consumption, this is the content we’re being given.</p>
<p><strong>Stephanie Brookes:</strong> Is there space for that longer-term conversation then? When you have the conversation with the electorate. </p>
<p>I had a look before I came in and I couldn’t find the official Steve Bracks twitter account.</p>
<p><strong>Steve Bracks:</strong> I don’t have twitter.</p>
<p><strong>Stephanie Brookes:</strong> How do we have these bigger conversations in a space where things are moving so quickly?</p>
<p><strong>Steve Bracks:</strong> I’m not against people having twitter. I think social media is liberating in lots of ways, it’s great for democracy, I think it’s good. If I was there now I would want to manage and be on top of it, of course, and be much more accessible as a result, I think it’s a good part of it. I think the bad part is that you feel you have to respond every minute of the day. Does it matter if a premier or prime minister doesn’t have a view on Oprah Winfrey if she’s coming to Australia? But you’re there, you’ve got to be accessible, you’ve got to talk about it. Does it matter? Not really. That’s my point really. The only thing I can think of in handling the relentless 24-media cycle is to do your own thing and to be out there on content when you have content to be out there on. I think that’s probably the mistake people make, is my preliminary view anyway.</p>
<p><strong>Stephanie Brookes:</strong> It’s an interesting thing, a lot of these conversations about the trivialisation and professionalisation of politics. We also get concerned about where the future lies in political communication, in election campaigns.</p>
<p><strong>Steve Bracks:</strong> Yes there’s a constant tension there with the public. It’s like the public saying my biggest concern is always education but when they come to vote they don’t weight it as high as say economic management even when they say it’s a bigger issue. Like, I want more debate about the future but I’m not going to listen to the radio stations talking about it. It’s an interesting thing and it deserves deeper analysis on why it happens but does happen.</p>
<p><strong>Stephanie Brookes:</strong> So how do we make space then? I see concerns in the United States about the divisiveness of political debate and the kind of adversarial nature of some of that in politics. Is that something you worry about in Australia?</p>
<p><strong>Steve Bracks:</strong> No I don’t worry about that. I don’t have a problem with adversarial politics, I think it’s good for contestability and I would expect nothing less. This is nothing new, it’s a joke really to analyse this to something new. In the 1950s in Australia, post war, we had governments that were brought down on adversarial politics, between the Queensland government and split of the Labor party. We talk about schisms and differences now but not really, they’re not as big as there’s always been strong philosophical differences. </p>
<p>I’d argue the opposite; I’d say the philosophical differences are probably a bit less. There’s been a merge to the middle much more than there used to be. I think that’s not a fair analysis and is it a bad thing that you have robust and strong debate about issues and differences? No, I don’t think it’s a bad thing. I think it’s a pretty poor that it’s just simply about nothing. But I think it’s a common view, “why can’t they just get together for the good of the nation?” sort of a top of the head view. “Wouldn’t it be much nicer if they all just agreed?”</p>
<p><strong>Stephanie Brookes:</strong> And some of that’s about values, right? So that’s the different values of different people.</p>
<p><strong>Steve Bracks:</strong> Absolutely. And they should be contested. I’m on the left side of politics, I’m a social democrat, member of the Labor party and I have different views to people on the other side and that’s fair. I like those presented, I love them to debate their views as well. I don’t have any problem with that. If that’s adversarial that’s good.</p>
<p><strong>Stephanie Brookes:</strong> Something incredibly valuable about debating those values.</p>
<p><strong>Steve Bracks:</strong> Yes, there is.</p>
<p><strong>Stephanie Brookes:</strong> You’ve talked passionately about the Labor party and Labor values consistently throughout your career. Are there political heroes that still kind of drive your post-politics interest, and post-politics agenda?</p>
<p><strong>Steve Bracks:</strong> I’d probably nominate two. One is <a href="http://john.curtin.edu.au/resources/biography/details.html">John Curtin</a>, probably one of the greatest leaders that Australia had during the second world war, but also in domestic policies. A lot of the domestic architecture we had for the arbitration system of the Reserve Bank, social safety nets we have, were largely designed during that period. As well as positioning us historically to not necessarily rely on the UK for our defence capabilities but have interests serve more broadly elsewhere. He had a great quality: humility, which is not often repeated in public life, Kim Beazley had it too, very endearing quality.</p>
<p>There’s an <a href="http://john.curtin.edu.au/manofpeace/crisis.html">interesting story</a> about John Curtin when he had to bring the 2/2nd of the 2/4th troops back from Europe in defiance of Churchill to defend Australia because the Japanese had landed in Papua New Guinea, Moresby, and he had defy the old country in doing it. And of course they came back without defences, he was worried, he was called a traitor by the then Herald, by Rupert Murdoch’s father at the time – so <a href="http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/murdoch-sir-keith-arthur-7693">Keith Murdoch</a> - and he was lampooned as a traitor in all the papers for not kowtowing to Churchill and agreeing to leave the troops there. He was worried they were unprotected and couldn’t have saved anyone. Anyway they landed, and he’s a very humble man, and thought he’d at least meet them in Fremantle and then travel on the train and meet them elsewhere. Everywhere he went he was cheered for saving Australia and so it went as he went on, he couldn’t believe the reception he got. And then the Herald changed their editorials after, says something about the media. So he was a great leader.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/21101/original/7wt2ry9s-1362716869.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/21101/original/7wt2ry9s-1362716869.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=389&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21101/original/7wt2ry9s-1362716869.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=389&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21101/original/7wt2ry9s-1362716869.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=389&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21101/original/7wt2ry9s-1362716869.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=489&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21101/original/7wt2ry9s-1362716869.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=489&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21101/original/7wt2ry9s-1362716869.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=489&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">“Bob Hawke…ran probably the best government Australia’s ever had.”</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Julian Smith/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>And the other one is <a href="http://primeministers.naa.gov.au/primeministers/hawke/">Bob Hawke</a>, as I thought he ran probably the best government Australia’s ever had. He was the chairman of the board not the chief executive. He didn’t confuse those roles and try and do both. He enabled ministers to do their jobs and interfered when there was failure. He opened up Australia more broadly to the rest of the world while keeping the social safety nets strong and really coined the notion of the <a href="http://www.palgrave.com/pdfs/1403920656.pdf">third way</a>. Which was accepting the market but moderating the market, intervention when necessary and keeping strong industrial, medical, health and social security safety nets. And doing it while persuading an argument to the people that it needed to be done even though it was disruptive to their lives at the time. A remarkable effort and one of the best governments ever. And he did it because of his capacity to be an effective chairman and great communicator as well.</p>
<p><strong>Stephanie Brookes:</strong> It seems like an interesting tension, being courageous on the one hand as a leader and having that conviction but also having that humility you speak of.</p>
<p><strong>Steve Bracks:</strong> Yes, well Bob didn’t have any humility so they’re different in that.</p>
<p><strong>Stephanie Brookes:</strong> How do you manage that balancing act?</p>
<p><strong>Steve Bracks:</strong> Well I think the answer to your question is quite different to what you think. I think one of the things you have to be is yourself. If you are a humble person you should not try to be otherwise. I hate it, and I think the public hates it, when people act to be something they’re not. They’re told to be tough so they look like they’re tough; they’re not tough really they’re just trying to sound like it. Be yourself, you will communicate better if you be yourself, you will get the message across better. People see through if you’re not and they’ll just think you’re an empty suit if you’re doing otherwise. In either case, Bob Hawke: gregarious, open, loved people, very tactile. Curtin who was shy, humble but a good orator when needed to be, they were being themselves. Their personality was understood by people but they were getting the message in something they believed in themselves by doing it. They weren’t going to a media course and told how to answer questions.</p>
<p><strong>Stephanie Brookes:</strong> And there’s a natural element to that?</p>
<p><strong>Steve Bracks:</strong> I think the natural element is good, yes.</p>
<p><strong>Stephanie Brookes:</strong> Rather than something you can learn?</p>
<p><strong>Steve Bracks:</strong> Yes.</p>
<p><strong>Stephanie Brookes:</strong> Looking forward, the 2010 election has virtually this mythical status as a horrendous, low point in campaigning and we look forward to 2013 and whether or not we’re already in an election campaign. As you look forward to that are there things that you look for in terms of where we look next and where the conversation and that public debate will go next?</p>
<p><strong>Steve Bracks:</strong> Every election is always the most important but there is a lot at stake because there is a lot of unfinished policy, which would be interrupted if there was a change of government. The need for aggregating risk and to have a national insurance disability scheme, which I think is an excellent scheme, will not be finished and if the government loses the opposition will find a reason not to fund it because they believe the budget is worse than they thought. The Gonski reforms, I think will go, so I think there’s a lot at stake in these issues at the election and I hope the fight is about that, about the alternative visions.</p>
<p><strong>Stephanie Brookes:</strong> But an actual fight, a conversation that is sticking to those values?</p>
<p><strong>Steve Bracks:</strong> Yes.</p>
<p><strong>Stephanie Brookes:</strong> How do you feel about the way that is going to play out. Do you look at these things and your political antenna kind of pop back up? Or do you watch as an observer?</p>
<p><strong>Steve Bracks:</strong> I think it will play out. I think you’ll see a strong campaign by the government about what they might lose, what reforms will be trashed and what the effect of that will be. I think on the opposition’s side I’m not sure if they’ll lay out their full policy, I suspect they’ll try and be a small target and just let the government try and lose, I think that’s what they’ll try and do.</p>
<p><strong>Stephanie Brookes:</strong> But a conversation that does draw people in?</p>
<p><strong>Steve Bracks:</strong> You’re after an answer aren’t you? Which is to say in contemporary politics you’ll never get a good debate because it’s all about personality. I think it changes, you always think it’s the worst when you’re in it now and then it looks better in retrospect. It goes in cycles. There will good leaders that emerge in the future, there will be great debates that emerge in the future. You tend to judge history by the moment, I don’t think that’s probably right.</p>
<p><strong>Stephanie Brookes:</strong> This idea of the cycles, that we go into each election remembering the one before but hopefully also the one before that and the one before that. So that long-term understanding of politics we have is part of that as well. I think back to the <a href="http://www.treasury.tas.gov.au/domino/dtf/dtf.nsf/v-ecopol/27B1947162091B46CA25748600246335">National Reform Agenda</a> and the way that played out, if we fast-forwarded that to today, what would you put on the agenda now?</p>
<p><strong>Steve Bracks:</strong> Well I initiated the National Reform Agenda because there was a gap in the nation, we had taken Victoria so far but we couldn’t achieve change unless there was cooperation from the Commonwealth to lift early childhood learning, to lift retention in education to year 12, to look at productivity in the economy more broadly and reduce regulation, all those things which would have made a difference. </p>
<p>I think I would argue that we should looking at sequentially areas that we can achieve cooperation between levels of government and just not simply say we have an enormous landscape and try and do everything at once. If I’m critical of anything about this government it would be by nominating too many things, not giving priority to all of them and therefore a lot of them being lost. So now one knows is 2012 is a year we would firm up reform in early childhood development and have more people participating in one-stop shops for families when they can go for child care welfare, infant welfare, pre-school or whatever else. Or whether it’s something else, because everything was urgent but when everything’s urgent nothing is done. So setting priorities, setting an agenda over a period of time, defining responsibilities better between the federal and state governments and to clarity that much more over time. And to work on areas which are going to lift the capabilities of Australia as the first priority. So educational attainment, we’re a high-wage, high cost country we won’t be able to compete on labour but we will be able to compete on our skills and abilities so an important emphasis on educational and skill attainment I think is one. On engagement with our region, I think they’re writing the <a href="http://asiancentury.dpmc.gov.au/">Asian White Paper</a> that’s another one I think we should be pursuing. So that would be some areas.</p>
<p><strong>Stephanie Brookes:</strong> Again this is a way of watching these things play out and seeing how it happens. You’ve also spoken a lot about multicultural issues and that as a priority. How do you see that playing out?</p>
<p><strong>Steve Bracks:</strong> We’re a bit different in Victoria, aren’t we? We understand, the others don’t as much. I’m a strong advocate of multiculturalism, I think it’s enriched us, it’s been a great benefit to Australia and I would hate to see for short-term political aims that we jeopardise the very thing that’s a great asset to us.</p>
<p><strong>Stephanie Brookes:</strong> It is something that resonates with people isn’t it?</p>
<p><strong>Steve Bracks:</strong> Well a good example is post the second world war we knew we couldn’t be any longer a population of around seven or eight million. So there was a consensus by both the government and opposition, the then Labor government and opposition Sir Robert Menzies sort of understood this as well, that we needed to double at least our population through a <a href="http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/04fifty.htm">significant migration</a> from across Europe and other places.</p>
<p>Now it could have been a bigger complexity because there was still some racism for Asian countries at the time but that dissipated over time. But that was agreed and it was agreed that leaders of political parties, and political parties more broadly, wouldn’t seek to use fear, fear of losing your job to someone overseas, as a motivator to prevent that happening. So there was a general consensus right the way through. You’ll notice through that period that from 1945 right up until a speech that John Howard gave on children overboard, that pretty well there was consensus all the way through and race was never used as an argument against post war development and development more broadly. </p>
<p>And I think we benefited from it enormously and I hope we go back to that at some stage because you can always appeal to the base level fears of people. Hope and fear both motivate people, and fear does motivate. And I think when you back something up against a wall as a political party using fear it’s a pretty miserable thing. So I think that’s one of the biggest dangers to multiculturalism.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/12717/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephanie Brookes does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Stephanie Brookes: We’re here for The Conversation, I’m from the University of Melbourne Media and Communications program and I’m here in Conversation with former Victoria premier Steve Bracks. Thanks…Stephanie Brookes, Lecturer, School of Journalism, Australian and Indigenous Studies, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/121002013-02-13T04:12:40Z2013-02-13T04:12:40ZIt’s time for a debate on federal fixed terms<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/20074/original/b5jcpvtc-1360295656.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Julia Gillard's early announcement of the election date has sparked a debate on fixed terms.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Julian Smith</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>When prime minister Julia Gillard <a href="http://www.pm.gov.au/press-office/address-national-press-club">announced</a> last month the nation would go to the polls on September 14, she made political history and caught the nation off guard. She also sparked renewed debate about whether the Australian federal government should move to fixed terms.</p>
<p>This is an issue that the Australian electorate need seriously consider, and one that former Victorian premier Steve Bracks has long supported. He introduced a fixed term to Victorian parliament in 2006, and says it should be extended to at the federal level.</p>
<p>“I support fixed four year terms for both state and federal governments around Australia,” Bracks told The Conversation.</p>
<p>“It is fair to all, provides certainty and enables governments to better able deliver on the program and policies they were elected to deliver.”</p>
<p>But is it that simple? And what would fixed terms actually look like? Let’s begin with the basics.</p>
<h2>The situation as it stands</h2>
<p>For reasons of history and political stability, members of the House of Representatives and the Senate each are elected using different systems of voting and for different lengths of time. Members of the house are elected for a maximum period of three years. This period, however, is flexible and the prime minister has the power to call an election at any time.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/20075/original/vfvjdvgm-1360295917.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/20075/original/vfvjdvgm-1360295917.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=899&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/20075/original/vfvjdvgm-1360295917.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=899&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/20075/original/vfvjdvgm-1360295917.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=899&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/20075/original/vfvjdvgm-1360295917.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/20075/original/vfvjdvgm-1360295917.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/20075/original/vfvjdvgm-1360295917.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Steve Bracks says that federal parliament should implement fixed-terms elections.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Life in the Senate is different. Senators are elected for terms of six years, fixed from the date that they assume their seat, regardless of whether an early election is called.</p>
<p>Nationally, the Commonwealth is in the minority in retaining this structure. Although Tasmania and Queensland still have fully flexible lower house terms, each of the remaining states and territories have <a href="http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2013/01/federal-election-date-announced-14-september-2013.html">adopted fixed terms</a> in upper and lower houses.</p>
<p>The international story is similar. The majority of Canadian provinces have fixed term electoral cycles. In Britain and New Zealand, political debate has so coloured perceptions, prime ministers in both countries have recently set election dates far in advance of what was required.</p>
<h2>Out of whack</h2>
<p>Back in Australia, a general election is typically held around every three years. Each election sees half of the Senate and the entire House of Representatives up for re-election, a system that keeps Senate and House elections roughly in sync.</p>
<p>But what happens after a number of early elections? Or in the case of a mid-term double dissolution election in which every seat in both houses is up for grabs? Clearly, the result would be a desynchronisation of the electoral cycles between the houses.</p>
<p>In this situation a government has two options: to hold a separate half senate election; or to hold an early general election. Typically governments are politically averse to the first and so the second is more likely.</p>
<h2>Early polls</h2>
<p>Why would a government risk a loss by heading to an early poll? There are at least three reasons, each revolving around the idea of electoral advantage.</p>
<p>First, a government travelling well in the polls may decide it’s better to risk its position when there is a good chance of being returned. In the process it earns itself another three years. This is what happened in 1998 when John Howard went to an election in October despite his term in office not expiring until March the next year.</p>
<p>Second, a government without control of the Senate may find it difficult to pass key aspects of its legislative agenda. In this instance it may call a double dissolution election.</p>
<p>However, governments are normally reluctant to take this path as it is seen as politically risky. In 2009, for example, Kevin Rudd decided not to hold a double dissolution election when emissions trading legislation failed to pass the Senate. By contrast, in 1987 Hawke utilised a double dissolution to exploit opposition disunity, winning his government a third term in office.</p>
<p>Finally, a government may call an election to bring Senate and House elections back into alignment. This may be done to avoid having to hold two federal elections in a single calendar year. This was part of Hawke’s rationale when, despite his government being barely 18 months old, he called an election for December 1984.</p>
<p>What all this means is that the Australian population head to the polls much more often than the nominal three years our system leads us to expect. In fact, since Federation, Australians have voted in a Commonwealth election <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp0001/01RP04">on average about every 30 months</a>. In the 25 years before the turn of the century, this had come down to a little over every 27 months.</p>
<h2>The advantage of fixed terms</h2>
<p>The first, and most obvious, advantage of a fixed term is that it removes the problem of short governments causing the desynchronisation of electoral cycles between the House and the Senate. Fixed terms do not, however, address the problem if this occurrence is due to calling of a double dissolution election.</p>
<p>Another advantage would be the significant reduction in electoral costs associated with the falling number of elections. Governments in fixed systems are much more likely to run full term. We can therefore expect to see the number of elections held per year to fall significantly.</p>
<p>A last, and particularly significant benefit, is removing the ability at a time of his or her choosing to call an election from the sitting prime minister. This prerogative is a substantial advantage of incumbency and allows a government to manipulate election dates for partisan ends. Its removal would be a significant win for the electorate.</p>
<h2>Cross-party reform</h2>
<p>Achieving this will not be easy. As Steve Bracks has noted, it will come down to bipartisanship.</p>
<p>“At a federal level a change to fixed four year terms requires a Constitutional change,” he said.</p>
<p>“To achieve this change through a majority vote and a majority of States, support of both major political parties is required.”</p>
<p>In the current political climate, this is unlikely, but not impossible. </p>
<p>On this evidence, there is strong case for thinking about the structure and length of our electoral cycle. Now that the Prime Minister has opened the debate, we as a nation would be foolish not to make sure it continues.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/12100/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tim Hamilton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>When prime minister Julia Gillard announced last month the nation would go to the polls on September 14, she made political history and caught the nation off guard. She also sparked renewed debate about…Tim Hamilton, Doctoral Candidate in Sociology, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.