Tasmania’s political leaders have made their opinions clear on potential fixed four-year terms for MHAs.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
On Tuesday, federal Liberal backbencher David Coleman prepared a draft private members’ bill to address the possibility of introducing fixed four-year terms for MHRs in Canberra.
It is argued that fixed term parliaments provide increased business confidence and government stability.
The counter-argument states that introducing fixed four-year terms for MHRs would necessitate introducing fixed eight-year terms for Senators so as not to break the nexus between the two houses of parliament – a notion at which some people are likely to baulk.
However, at present, every state parliament has fixed four-year terms for members of the lower house.
Except Tasmania.
A state government spokesperson said there were no plans to change Tasmania’s electoral system “in any way”.
But when he was Opposition Leader in 2006, Premier Will Hodgman floated the Constitution (Fixed Term Parliament) Amendment Bill.
The bill, which the Greens supported, advocated for the election to take place on the third Saturday in March every four years.
In Tasmania, there are varying degrees of support for fixed four-year terms for state MHAs.
Opposition Leader Bryan Green said Labor was “open to a discussion around a change”.
“Fixed terms would provide an extra level of certainty,” he said.
Tasmanians expect a government that is committed to serving its full term, not picking the time that suits their political self-interest
- Cassy O'Connor
Greens leader Cassy O’Connor was more unwavering in her support for the idea.
“Tasmanians expect a government that is committed to serving its full term, not picking the time that suits their political self-interest,” she said.
Political scientist Richard Herr said Tasmania’s system promoted an “uneven playing field”, and that fixed four-year terms would “add an element of democratic fairness”.
Without fixed four-year terms, he said, governments will “typically choose to go to elections when they think they can win”.
“If every other state has [fixed four-year terms], it proves that it works at a state level, where the Senate nexus isn’t an issue,” Professor Herr said.
In 1992, then Premier Ray Groom passed a motion to introduce fixed four-year terms, which Tony Rundle summarily revoked when he came into power in 1996.
