Have you ever wondered why parliamentarians, lawyers and occasional column-writers use long words in their speeches and commentaries?  Well, there are a number of reasons, I suppose, but chief among them are: 1. a large number of sitting parliamentarians are indeed lawyers or members of ‘the professions’ such as doctors, engineers, etc.; and 2. they just like to sound smarter than the listener/reader.

Which segues (there’s one of those words!) perfectly into the subject of this week’s commentary – the upcoming Referendum – to be held contemporaneously with the Council Elections being held Saturday, 19.3.16.  Now, the Council Election in itself is a tough enough decision-making process for the voter, made the more difficult because voting in a Council Election in Queensland is compulsory.

Well, voting in a Referendum is equally compulsory, so it’s best you know both ‘why you are taking part in a referendum’ and ‘which way you intend to vote’.  Queensland, like my home state (South Australia) is relatively young, having effectively seceded from New South Wales in 1859, a little over 150 years ago.  In that time, there have been 7 referenda – only two of which have succeeded.  So what’s a referendum all about?

Queensland’s Parliament, as well as the general populace by connection, is ruled by a document called a Constitution and that august document has been with us since 1859.  In order to ‘change’ the Constitution, the actual Constitution contains a requirement that a referendum needs to be held in order to effect that change.  A brilliant piece of ‘law’, enacted by Parliament, and written by – you guessed it – lawyers and parliamentarians.

But let me go back a little before progressing to the confluence of events that strike all of us on 19.3.16.  As far back as 1860, Queensland was governed by a bi-cameral parliament, meaning a parliament of effectively two chambers – the Legislative Assembly (the lower house) and the Legislative Council (the upper house).  (In federal terms, reader, you’ll know them as House of Representatives and the Senate.)  Initially, both houses of Parliament were voted in for 5 year terms – but in those days there were: about 40 Districts; much longer distances to travel by horse and buggy; little effective telecommunication; less laws to concern oneself with. (In those days, members of parliament were paid the equivalent of $5 per sitting day, to a maximum of $400 per year!)  The Upper House (Leg Council) was abolished in 1922, effectively making Qld the only uni-cameral State Parliament.

The (current) three year term was effected in 1890, to be effective from the 1893 election, and has been in vogue ever since.  A Referendum held in March 1991 – a mere 25 years ago – vetoed an attempted change to four-year terms.  As a matter of interest, reader, two years before the Federal Referendum to allow Aborigines the right to vote, be free, buy land, work for wages, etc, Queensland allowed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders the franchise (the right to vote) on a voluntary basis in 1965.  By 1971 – the cynical amongst us might say – one or other of the major parties had realised that the ATSI population was a decent voting bloc to be courted, and made enrolment and voting compulsory for that group in 1971.

So, back to this year’s referendum – I should say at this point that readers living outside Queensland needn’t bother themselves with the minutiae of the balance of this article, unless you are enjoying its ‘entertainment’ value!  Just by way of backgrounding, I’ve just been on Skype with my darling wife who’s been in Adelaide for 5 weeks caring for her elderly mother, and she “hasn’t heard anything’ about the referendum.  It has to be said, I suppose, that the referendum has been somewhat sprung upon the hapless voter in Queensland at very late notice.  At any event, voting in the referendum is simple – it comes down to a vote YES or a vote NO.  Now, which way to vote?  And why?

Remember the old saying – “The only time you can tell when a Member of Parliament/Car salesman/Insurance Advisor is lying, is when their lips are moving.”?  I suspect that little anecdote is at play here.  The referendum will require you to vote yes or no to 4 year Parliamentary terms, with an election to be held on the last Saturday of each October – NO MATTER HOW GOOD OR BAD IS THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DAY!

The YES vote

• Fewer elections means less cost for Queenslanders – this is a plea to the uninitiated who might be swayed to the view that “less money spent means more money for me”;
• Gives business and other affected parties – business, the elderly, parents of school children, etc. – greater certainty over Government direction and plans into the future;
• Gives surety to schools, parents and students so that the election date doesn’t clash with school holidays.  Now, I’m (almost) 62 years old, and in my years of voting have NEVER heard a parent or teacher complain about an election being held during school holidays.  That’s what we have Postal and Absentee voting, for goodness sake.

The NO vote

• Firstly and foremost – less control by the voter – you and men, dear reader – whose value has always, and will always be, the ability to vote against (or out) a government which is underperforming or which has lost the confidence of the people;
• Potential for complacency amongst sitting members;
• Loss of accountability to the voters for an extra year.

One only has to look at recent governments to see how the Electorate – you and me – has voted out governments whose ideas and plans and behaviour were out of kilter with what we wanted or for which we had voted them in.  I give you the turnaround in the fortunes of the Bligh Government, followed by the haplessness of the Campbell LNP Government.  No-one could have foreseen a swing to the Labor Party in the last election, but it’s a clear authority of the people to have voted out Campbell, and earlier, Bligh’s Labor Government.  No matter which way your general inclinations sit – LNP or Labor – extending a Parliamentary term to 4 years will affect you one way or the other.

That said, maintaining the status quo might not be your ‘bag’ either; I suppose everyone MUST ask themselves, their friends, their parents, their children, hell even your sitting Member, what are the benefits and drawback either way.

A new Government after the next Election could bring in the most draconian of legislation, such as imprisonment for drink driving offences; this State is – in my view at least – becoming more a Nanny or Police State seemingly every week.  So, a law enacted at the first sitting of a new Parliament (and the end of the Palusczak  government’s term) will remain in place – implacably – until a four year term is complete.

Remember, with a uni-cameral Parliament – the lack of an Upper (Clearing) House, the Government of the day can effectively do what it likes.  Sure, there are Parliamentary committees which are used to oversight new legislation, but they are ‘committees’ whose brief can be cancelled with the flick of a signature.

It summary, it’s often said that “people get the governments they deserve”.  There is little room for complacency in a referendum which has been foisted upon the populace at late notice and which the Parliamentarians behind it say will “benefit the people”.  What’s that saying about “when a pollies lips are moving”?

As a Post Script, this morning I listened to Opp Leader Lawrence Springborg criticising the Paluczak Govt for being 'genetically unable' to govern, and the Dep Premier, in particular for the way Ms Trad allegedly traduced the reputation of Rob Pyne who yesterday resigned from the ALP and moved to the Cross Bench.

We now have a Parliament consisting of 42 ALP, 42 LNP and 5 Cross Benchers. Springborg effectively said 'this is a stagnating government' with no idea how to govern.

He went on to say that 'we won't make the mistakes we made in the days of the Newman Govt' - which was tossed out after one term with a huge majority - 'when we didn't listen to the people of Queensland'.

He was asked to comment on the Referendum and had the unmitigated gall to say - after his abuse of the current Govt as being ineffective and the Newman Govt of being arrogant - that FOUR year fixed terms would provide surety! Surety!! So, he's saying that a paralysed, ineffective, genetically disabled Govt of 1 year's standing, ought to be given the opportunity to govern for a fixed 4 years.

He's saying that a Govt that might reflect the Newman LNP Govt ought to be given 4 years to show its arrogance and to display it's out of touch with the people of Qld.

So, it underscores the notion of "when a polly's lips are moving, listen carefully before making a decision!"