Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Improving politicians' behaviour

By Valerie Yule - posted Wednesday, 5 December 2007


A politician has as much legal right as any other citizen to resign from his job at the drop of a hat or at the beckon of a lovelier position. But should there be a legal or moral obligation for a politician resigning from parliament, except for health or similarly serious reasons, to pay the costs of the resulting by-election, rather than taxpayers? These costs are likely to be over $200,000, not counting the costs of the campaigners who are contesting or re-contesting his vacant seat.

Current trends, almost reaching waves of resignations, indicate that large savings would be made.

Public consideration is also needed about payments of parliamentary pensions, first introduced to prevent post-political destitution. Should these be available for those politicians for whom they are merely cream on highly remunerative later positions, positions that were only made possible by the advantages of their political experiences and contacts? Could they waive pensions until they do need them, out of a sense of social responsibility?

Advertisement

These Federal elections have seen several encouraging developments in how democracy works and is seen to work. Some of this has been in public behaviour, and one feature has been in politicians' behaviour.

These improvements must be recognised, and backed up by reforms in electoral processes such as proposed October 2007, for “How to Make Elections more Democratic”.

Two changes in voters’ behaviour observed in many polling booths have been the increase in numbers who actually read election material, and voters who returned How to Vote Cards for re-use to help reduce the present appalling waste of paper sacrificed on the altar of democracy.

Hopeful signs for improved politicians’ behaviour were seen in tally rooms and post-election speeches, where courtesy, good humour, dignity and sticking to the point showed that political debate in the House need no longer revert to sledging, bear-gardening and avoidance tactics.

However, recently politics has been notable for another trend - rapid and unexpected exits to take up more remunerative careers, available mainly because of the knowledge and skills that life in parliament has given them. The temptations are increasing. You could parody Hamlet:

For who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a political life,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a nice non-executive boardroom seat and/or consultancy?

Advertisement

Elections are the time when politicians can make an honourable exit by not standing again. Resignations are also honourable when ill-health makes full service no longer possible.

Legally, no one can be forced to stay in any employment position. Even if there is a binding contract there can be ways out. These can include buying out - and this could be a politician’s solution by way of contributing to by-election costs from parliamentary pension income.

All secular organisations must always be prepared for the possibility of their best staff being head-hunted or finding other positions with better opportunities. It is the organisations that must bear the costs of making good whatever mayhem and unfinished work are left behind, and recruiting new officers or staff. In the past, white-collar positions were likely to be more permanent, with long-term loyalty and on-the-job experience valued highly in both business and the public service. This could be at the cost of stagnation. Now the opposite extreme may be too much transience and blow-ins at the cost of loss of organisational memory and coherence.

Is the undertaking of a three-year Parliamentary term any different from any other perceived implicit work contract? Legally there is no difference. Is there any concept of a social contract?

To leave when prospects of exercising power in office have collapsed is understandable. “What good can I do now?” may be the uppermost question in a politician’s mind. What good is just sitting and baiting the government for another three years with no apparent political future after that? Is a former leader still sitting on a back-bench an asset with wisdom and experience, or an irritating liability? There is a case for saying that their experience can help them rebuild their party, as well as for the opposite feeling that new blood is needed because their own blood runs tired.

There are many examples in State and Federal politics and internationally where party leaders ousted by their own party or resigning leadership for other reasons, such as seeking a less onerous workload, have remained in Parliament to fight for their party as ordinary members, and, it may be, to win another day. Kim Beazley and Mark Vaile illustrate those options. Beazley has sat out his term, to the benefit of his constituents and attempting to prepare the place for his successor.

The public which has voted politicians back into power, and the campaigners who fought for them, may well feel thwarted by a response of resignation early in the piece. It can appear to be the equivalent of spitting dummies or taking one’s bat and stumping off. It can be unsettling for trust and reliability.

Costs to the taxpayer are considerable. When Jeffrey Kennett resigned in 1999, the cost to the taxpayer of the Burwood by-election was $193,400 including all direct costs, plus apportioned costs of VEC (PDF 273KB). Steve Bracks, who came in through a by-election in 1994, went out leaving another costing thousands more, according to unsupported press statements.

The Australian Electoral Commission reported in 1996 on “public concern at the timing, frequency and cost of by-elections”. There were eight federal by-elections between the 1993 and 1996 federal elections. Their total cost, excluding public funding, was $2,273,463, at an average of approximately $285,000 per by-election. However, the Commission was worried by the proposal that retiring politicians should meet the costs of a consequent by-election because this “essentially applies a penalty to retirement, and raises issues of equity in relation to the smaller political parties and Independent Members who do not have a political party machinery behind them to support the payment of a penalty of that magnitude”.

If the penalty were imperative and not voluntary, “questions of definition must arise, such as whether there is some threshold set of reasons for resignation that should trigger the penalty … Once it is accepted that some exclusions are necessary, the further question arises as to how such cases should be arbitrated, particularly given that such arbitration would inevitably involve personal and private factors, with their attendant difficulties of interpretation. Legislation would be required for enforcement.” (Supplementary submission to the Joint Standing Committee on electoral matters (PDF 123KB).)

However, public unsettlement and effects of a bad example are increased when politicians take up remunerative positions with organisations that have directly benefited from what those politicians have done while in office - benefits such as contracts and preferences. This can oil the way for politicians in office to routinely seek to benefit those who will repay them when they leave politics. The very real danger of such post-politics rewards is that they tempt politicians while in power to favour business organisations that are likely to provide them with lucrative appointments in the future, and there are examples on record of such connections.

There is a Japanese word for this, ama-kudari, which translates as “coming down from heaven”, and we do not want an Australian word for it as well.

Australia is still one of the least corrupt countries. Corrupt countries are horrible to live in. Australia should be very keen to keep some practices out.

Politicians resigning for other than health or similar serious reasons should at least not punish their electorates further. They should voluntarily, from a sense of honour and social obligation, pay the costs of their resignation, particularly for the consequent by-election, from their subsequent parliamentary income. This is especially so when the resignation follows close upon their election.

Politicians resigning with a bright, even golden, future in careers only made possible because of the advantages they have gained through their political experience, should at least not take the pensions they certainly do not need, until and unless penury strikes them.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

11 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Valerie Yule is a writer and researcher on imagination, literacy and social issues.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Valerie Yule

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Valerie Yule
Article Tools
Comment 11 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy