Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to share some observations on the US elections held on Tuesday this week. At the start I want to pass on my congratulations to the Democrats on their significant success in retaking the House of Representatives after 12 years. Apparently, as at the latest information, there is a strong chance of their holding a majority in the US Senate. Whether there will be an appeal in the state of Virginia between Webb and Allen I do not know, but nevertheless it is a first for the US, with Nancy Pelosi being the first woman Speaker in the House of Representatives.

I would also like to pass on my condolences to Republican Senator Jim Talent from the state of Missouri. I met Senator Jim Talent during my time working in Washington DC in 1986 and 1987, when I spent time with Thor Hearn, a good friend and colleague and a lawyer from the state of Missouri. Senator Talent is immensely capable and competent and is still young and has a tremendous future ahead of him. I wish him and his family well in their future endeavours. I also want to acknowledge the efforts of Bob Taft II, who is a former Republican Governor of Ohio, the son of my former boss, Bob Taft Jr, a former US senator and former partner and member of the Taft, Stettinius & Hollister law firm, which I worked with in Washington DC during 1986 and 1987.

I also note the Prime Minister’s statements today of congratulations to the Republicans and sharing some observations on the US elections. I note in particular his reference to Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator John McCain as prospective US presidential candidates in 2008. In that regard, I note that both those senators supported the war in Iraq. Also in regard to Iraq, I note that Senator Joe Lieberman, an independent candidate for the state of Connecticut, won against the nominated Democrat, Ned Lamont. Ned Lamont was elected by the Democrats to be their chosen candidate because his policy was to withdraw from Iraq—a cut-and-run policy. Interestingly, Senator Joe Lieberman, who supported the war in Iraq, convincingly won in Connecticut.

Nevertheless, I want to share some observations with regard to the merit of considering citizen initiated referendums here in Australia. I also want to share some comments on the merit of a three-year fixed term in the federal parliament for the House of Representatives and a fixed term of six years in the Senate. Before doing so, I say that on Tuesday in the US Americans did not vote for a president, but they did vote for one-third of the 100-member Senate, all of the 435-member House of Representatives, 36 of the 50 state governors, and thousands upon thousands of local mayors, councillors and officials. But there is more—much more. Americans also elected school board members, the boards of fire departments, county auditors and, of course, local sheriffs. Then there is the judiciary: the county court, the appeal court and the state supreme court justices.

Washington political consultant Earl Bender has said the US has more than 170,000 elected offices. According to one report, there are at least 83,000 units of government in the US. The US founding fathers designed the system this way to ensure power devolved down to the people rather than centralised in Washington DC. In November 2008, two years hence, we will see the US vote for a president and most of the 7,000 members and officials of the 50 states. With so many elections on the one day, the political party on the ascendancy in the race for the White House could expect a certain amount of its popularity to flow through the system down to local government counties and the various elected officials.

With respect to citizen initiated referendums in the US on Tuesday, we have seen many referendums at the state level. In 2004 there were 11 referendums on the issue of marriage and whether the people supported marriage between a man and a woman. In each case, overwhelming support was provided. Likewise, at the election on Tuesday, voters in six states—Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin—balloted on that issue. From my understanding, again there was overwhelming support of marriage between a man and a woman. There were referendums on abortion, embryonic stem cell research—in the state of Missouri—the merit of smoking bans, higher tobacco taxes, compulsory acquisition of property and the like.

It is my view that there is merit in considering citizen initiated referendums here in Australia. Yes, we do live in a parliamentary democracy and MPs are there to make decisions for and on behalf of the people. Nevertheless, people are important, and it is up to them to make the decisions. If they can meet a threshold test in terms of citizen initiated referendums then surely it is proper and appropriate to listen to the people and hear their views.

We have, this week, just had a debate on the merits of cloning, and there was a split vote. In my view, the closeness of the vote undermines the integrity of the decision. Yes, we live in a parliamentary democracy, and the majority rules, but I think there is merit in considering that, when the integrity of such a decision is undermined because there is a split vote, when we have controversial ethical and moral issues such as human cloning, perhaps we should consider the merit of requiring either a 60 per cent or a two-thirds majority. I believe it is, in this case, of merit because then the parliament would not be seen to be split on the issue, and neither would the community. In my view it would provide some comfort to the legislators—meaning us—that we have support and backing for such controversial proposals, whatever proposals they may be. But when we are dealing with profound life issues such as human cloning—the deliberate creation of a human embryo for the purposes of research and its destruction—I think it would give everyone comfort to know that a majority of significance and substance applies.

With respect to the US elections, you can see that substantial funds have been expended. On the funding of the elections and the election campaigns, one recent report estimated the cost of the elections plus the referendums that go with them at $US3.9 billion or $A5.3 billion. The Centre for Responsive Politics said that represented a 30 per cent increase on the elections held four years prior. I am happy to comment further on the cost of elections, but would like to conclude by saying that in the US they do have fixed term elections: every two years for the House of Representatives, every four years for the President and governors, and every six years for the US senators. They are fixed, so they are held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. In Australia, because the average election is held every 2.5 years—if you look at the average since Federation—I support the merit of considering a three-year fixed term for the House of Representatives and a six-year term for the Senate. I find it very hard to support the merit of an eight-year Senate term. Nevertheless I do support, if at all possible, a four-year House of Representatives term, but, in this instance, if it requires an eight-year term for the Senate, that is something that I could not support.