Michael Rowland on four-year terms for federal parliament

Marty Gray: Hi, my name is Marty Gray from 4 Year Terms Australia, an advocacy group seeking a referendum on four-year terms with a fixed election date for Australia's federal government. I'm joined by Michael Rowland, who is one of Australia's most respected journalists. For 15 years, he co-hosted ABC News Breakfast and has covered politics right across Australia, the United States, and further abroad. He's talked extensively during this time about the need for a longer parliamentary term to improve the quality of government decision-making and public debate, and he's kindly agreed to chat with me to explain why. Thanks so much, Michael.

Michael Rowland: Hey, Marty, and thank you very much for the invitation.

Marty Gray: No, it was so fantastic that you reached out about this and couldn't believe my luck. So, you know, Michael, you've just got such a unique perspective on this. You spent 39 years at the ABC and in that time there were 14 federal elections under our current model of having an election every 3 years. Why do you think and what was it during that time that made you think we need a longer term for federal government?

Michael Rowland: I just think a longer term for federal parliament would provide better policy outcomes for governments. It'll be better for the business environment and as we all know what one thing businesses don't like is instability and uncertainty and there's sadly a lot of that a year or so out at the end of the three-year term and to be honest having seen a fair few of varying qualities over the years it would provide better politicians for Australia in a national parliament particularly better ministers they'd have that extra year more time to get across their briefs to better tangle with the public service in terms of policy development and again I circle back to being the end result with a four-year not a three-year term providing better policies for Australia.

What one example is and I just ahead of this chat was thinking about the recent budget. I was in Canberra for an event to cover Jim Chalmers's fifth budget. The most comprehensive attempt at tax reform in 25 years and the jury's out on whether Jim Chalmers went too far or not far enough. But imagine how much more bold, imagine how much more courageous Jim Chalmers could have been if he was staring at an election in 3 years down the track, not in 2 years. How far he could have gone down the tax reform front if he had that extra year of buffer. If the government had an extra year of buffer to sell the change to get the changes through parliament and to sell them that is one example I think where a four-year term would be preferable to a to a three-year term

Marty Gray: And that's definitely one thing we've heard a lot as well that you know having that extra budget would provide so much more opportunity. And Michael, in your experience, you know, during your coverage of so many of these elections, was there a specific moment or an election campaign even where you thought this probably isn't working as well as it should and there could be room for a longer term?

Michael Rowland: Oh, listen, a few examples. One, one that springs to mind is going back to Kevin Rudd's first term, after the 2007 election. Most people on this chat would recall the period of intense policy instability that centred around the carbon pollution reduction scheme or the then prime minister's attempt to make that scheme a reality from mid ' 09 or so from memory onwards it was knocked back twice in by federal parliament and there was a lot of speculation towards the end of '09 start of 2010 mind you the election should not have been held until November 2010 3 years after November 2007. But a year ahead of that, I'd argue there is this period of policy paralysis centred around the CPRS.

There was a lot of speculation that Kevin Rudd was planning to at least thinking of springing on a double dissolution election at the start of 2010 to force the scheme through. He dropped the scheme a few months into 2010 and we all saw what happened to him with the leadership challenge, the successful challenge by Julia Gillard in the mid 2010. The government of Australia lost close to 12 months of successful governing based on that. And if there was another year to play with the result might have been different but Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard and all the other Labor MPs and yes there are other dynamics involved in why Kevin Rudd was rolled but they were all looking at the fast approaching election the all too short three years fast approaching and who'd have you know the outcome might have been I'd argue would have been different if there was another year attached to that term at the time.

Marty Gray: You bring up a lot of memories there for a lot of people who follow politics. Bad memories first of some later. But there you go. And Michael, a really interesting point you touched on there is obviously you have the short three-year cycle that we have. But in addition to that, unlike most countries, as you pointed out during that particular session, our prime minister actually chooses the election date rather than it being set in advance. And generally our prime minister only provides 5 to 6 weeks notice of that date. During your time reporting on elections, how much of the airtime was consumed by speculation about when the election might be called rather than the issues of the day?

Michael Rowland: Marty, I'll let you and everybody in on a secret. I absolutely hated the taking part in the kabuki dance of election date speculation on air on News Breakfast over 15 years with successive prime ministers. The amount of air time wasted on asking the then prime minister about you know 6 months 8 months longer out from the scheduled election when's it going to be PM if I was to plan holidays on this around this date would I would I waste my time all of that on News Breakfast on any breakfast TV program if you got the prime minister on you might get five or six minutes maybe a bit more and to waste 1 2 3 minutes of that valuable air time with the prime minister of Australia just going back and forth fourth you know he's he and in Julia Gillard's case she we're never going to give you an answer on the election date just think I just can't help thinking of the better use of those minutes asking questions about policy more serious issues so a lot of election a lot of air time was wasted this ritual back and forth with prime ministers yes it made good TV on occasion which is why we did it so hands up guilty there but gee, it was such an incredible waste of time and that waste of time would not be there if we had four-year terms, preferably fixed four-year terms.

So everybody know knows well in advance when the date was.

Marty Gray: It's really interesting and I think everyone can agree that it is incredibly boring to just hear that constant debate. And you did mention Julia Gillard actually, who is one of the very few prime ministers in living memory, who actually decided to set the election with many months notice rather than waiting for five or six weeks. And she got criticised for it to a certain degree, basically saying you're kicking off the longest election campaign in Australia's history. But the reality is there's countries who are able to do this. Like New Zealand has the same system as us, but prime ministers on both sides have given more than 6 months notice of election dates.

Could you see a world where journalists like yourself or others could instead of asking that question, maybe ask 6 months out and say why haven't you set the date? Why can't you provide that certainty now instead of sort of treating it as this political tool?

Michael Rowland: I agree and I think what Julia Gillard then did then at the start of 2013 was politically brave but good for the country. And I ahead of this chat I went back and looked at her national press club address in January that year where she dropped the election date. I announce that I will advise the Governor General to dissolve the House of Representatives and to issue writs on Monday the 12th of August for an election for the House and half the Senate to be held on Saturday the 14th of September. I do so not to start the nation's longest election campaign. Quite the opposite. It should be clear to all which are the days of governing and which are the days of campaigning.

Announcing the election date now enables individuals and business investors and consumers to plan their year. The days of governing should be clear and the days of campaigning should be clear. I and I think that is a great model to work from. If we're stuck with three-year terms for the time being to have a date at least set out several months 6 months at least in advance I think that again will provide better stability more time for policies to be implemented and delivered and a lot less time wasted by all this fruitless and needless and in the end very annoying especially for the audience especially for the voters election date speculation

Marty Gray: Every state and territory for those that don't actually do have a four-year term and all of them except Tasmania have the fixed election date that we were just talking about. Having reported on both state and federal politics extensively and many elections across those, do you see those differences in the fixed term and the four-year term play out in how those elections are reported on?

Michael Rowland: Generally speaking, yes. So I mean it's great as a journalist when I was working on breakfast as a breakfast program to have certainty about when any state and territory election date was in terms of planning and effective allocation of resources. Generally speaking again you know different states and territories have had different governments over the years. It has provided better policy outcomes, better policy solutions for the voters in those states and territories. It hasn't. And you know, I hearken back to the leadership revolving door in the New South Wales Parliament in the first decade of the century. I mean, four-year terms don't necessarily stop leadership instability and leadership challenges.

Politicians will be politicians regardless of whether it's 3 years or 4 years. But having covered state and territory elections around the country for a long time, I can make the point that having a fixed date for most of them knowledge when that's happening is great, but also it provides better outcomes for people in New South Wales, Victoria, Adelaide, Queensland, WA, you name it.

Marty Gray: That's really interesting. And obviously in furious agreement with you here that a fixed four-year term would be a better way to run our federal government. The big issue is it's very hard to do. Obviously it requires a referendum. And Australia's held 45 referendums since 1901 and only eight have actually passed. And one of those failed referendums included one and four-year terms didn't include fixed terms that was held in 1988. Just shortly after you started at the ABC as a teenage cadet as well. If we did try again, what do you think would be needed to succeed in a referendum on four-year fixed terms?

Michael Rowland: I recall that '88 vote and yes, I was but a teenager, but I did vote and I voted yes actually to all four, but very strongly yes for the extension of the national parliament to four years and was crushingly disappointed. It went down and sadly went down quite heavily. What is needed for successful referendums? Of course, it used to be bipartisan, but now I'd argue, and I'm sure you'd agree, Marty, multi-partisan support for any referendum question. I note before the 20 25 election, Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton for at least a brief period were both on the same page when it came to supporting four-year terms, but neither really trusted the other to support the other if a referendum option was proposed.

So a referendum is not going to survive in Australia if there isn't widespread party support. It's a challenge now because we are entering sadly I think into a period of political instability and increased polarisation harder to achieve but really for something as such a no-brainer outcome for Australia I would argue as four-year terms are to get all the political parties all the major political players on side getting behind a yes vote is really what's needed. So, we'll see whether that happens, but yeah, I'm not holding hopes up anytime soon, but that's why I'm happy to put my shoulder to the wheel for initiatives like this to at least try to put pressure on polies to make it happen.

Marty Gray: And I greatly appreciate it, Michael. People like yourself sharing your experience goes such a long way. More recently than the 1988 failed referendum. You reported extensively on the 2017 marriage equality postal survey as well as the voice referendum in 2023. Do you have any reflections from those campaigns that might be relevant here?

Michael Rowland: I mean there's compare and contrast I guess for the same-sex marriage postal survey. You had the sitting prime minister of the day, Malcolm Turnbull and the opposition leader, Bill Shorten, both in favour advocating a yes vote and I think that counted for a lot and we saw happily thankfully an overwhelming yes vote in that postal survey and the legislation through parliament followed shortly afterwards. And the contrast is the voice referendum. Yes, the sitting prime minister Anthony Albanese, a subject very dear to his heart was a strong advocate of course for the yes vote and Peter Dutton and the coalition was advocating a no vote. And there were lots of other dynamics at play as well.

Some dark forces involved in that very ugly and I covered it when at the ABC very ugly campaign. But the fact that there wasn't bipartisan support for the voice was one of the reasons. It wasn't the only reason, but it was a strong reason why in my view it went down and again sadly I voted yes. Sadly it went down quite heavily.

Marty Gray: More broadly in sort of the modern age you've spoken about politicians and policymakers needed to improve their storytelling to you know deal with changes in how people consume news, social media and everything else. Look is obviously highly important and super popular and at the front of the public domain for your fixed parliamentary terms is for the small minority of people who may not see this as the most important issue of the country. How do how do you sell it? How do you get an issue on you know constitutional reform to get something that people actually are interested in?

Michael Rowland: What Marty people aren't excited by the issue of constitutional reform? No, surely not hard to believe. But listen, it's as we saw this certainly around the coverage of the recent budget, the fastest growing and biggest already or soon to be biggest cohort are the millennials and the Gen Zs. They don't watch legacy media. A lot of them don't watch News Breakfast and you know other linear TV programs. You've got to be very adept at a social media campaign on the TikToks and the Instagram of this world to seize people's attention especially younger voters about the benefits of it. Just explaining in clear simple brief terms the advantages for Australia's parliament, our democracy for business certainty.

Hey, you know, you've got another year or so where you don't have to haul yourself off and force down a democracy sausage at for a national election. More time to think about which party you want to vote for. So I think yeah there just needs to be a real focus on advocacy promotion but yeah just going to where the increasing cohort of voters are and that's on social media and politicians are adept at that increasingly some better than others but I think that's where the campaign has to be fought and won or lost.

Marty Gray: Absolutely. I had to get an Instagram and TikTok account for this entire purpose and although it hasn't been nearly as successful as yours, Michael, it's you know an important place to start these discussions I think. So yeah 100%. And it was yeah kindly how you managed to reach out and for us to even have this conversation. And I think one thing that you know is interesting is that people like yourself obviously have been so close to this for so long, and have just seen the importance of it. And you know, one thing that I wanted to know about you is since stepping down from ABC News breakfast and now being able to sleep in past 3:00 a.m.

For the first time in 15 years, which must be such an incredible feeling. Are there any other causes that are front of mind of you that you're really passionate about when it comes to politics and how we run our country?

Michael Rowland: Yes. I mean, the fundamental cause that I've always had a belief in is protecting, preserving, and strengthening Australian democracy. Having a four-year fixed national term of our federal parliament would go a long way towards doing that. But we do live in an age of increasing polarisation in increasingly fractured political environment. And I'm happy to lend my voice and reputation for what it's worth. To any attempt to make Australia less polarized, less fractured. I've spent a lot of time in the States. I was there as a correspondent. I've been back to cover the last four of presidential elections. I'm going back there again shortly. U I've seen firsthand where that country is going and it's not going in a good direction in terms of increased polarisation.

And I don't want Australia to go down that path. And I'll do everything I can to protect what is a wonderful democracy, a world-leading democracy that we enjoy here in Australia to ensure that survives well into the future. So that's the that's one of the main causes along with sleeping in. Who knew sleep was good for you? That I'd really like to spend some time in on now and happily liberated from the ABC.

Marty Gray: Michael, that's I mean, it's a true testament to yourself that you're willing to volunteer and put your hand up for what is pretty challenging and hard to win causes such as this and many other things that could hopefully help improve how our country runs and the lives of everyday people as well. Just from a personal perspective, do you have any further advice or things that you think that could be useful to get something over like this across the line?

Michael Rowland: Oh, it's just seize the opportunities when you can to try to get the four-year national parliament term on onto the political into the political conversation. It's hard. It's very hard. Lots of people, lots of voters, lots of politicians have and there's no reflection on them, but just have short-term attention spans because lives are so busy at the moment. It's hard to get people to focus on broader issues like this when they're justifiably concerned about cost of living and getting ahead. It's just a question of being persistent repeatedly, you know, and that's where the social media videos come in, pumping out videos on how beneficial a four-year term would be for Australia and why at least people should think about it.

You know why works in other countries in terms of having that stability that set date years ahead so the system makes perfect I think a four-year term would be perfect and we just need to be persistent party

Marty Gray: Michael very inspiring and a lot of good advice there and having people like yourself with the experience that you have just shows how important this is I think and you bring such a unique perspective on it having been a part of more elections than most Australians ever would imagine that anyone would be. So, I just wanted to say a huge thank you to you for sharing your experience and advice as part of this and just say a thank you again for lending your name and reputation which I think is worth probably more than you're lending on to this and would love to speak to you again in future and hopefully later this year when a parliamentary inquiry is looking at this issue they can come out with a recommendation that progresses this a little bit further than it has been since 1988.

I hopefully hope

Michael Rowland: I'm very grateful to for the conversation and more than happy to stay involved. Marty, I think you're on to a great thing here. So, all strength to your arm.

Marty Gray: Thanks so much, Michael. Appreciate it again.