Most political commentary and punditry on elections take as their starting point the notion that every election is winnable by either major party. John Black's recent article in online opinion is written with this premise. Unfortunately history and statistics do not support this. Since Whitlam's dismissal in 1975, the party in federal government has only changed twice. It has only been "drovers dog" elections that have seen an electoral change in federal government. The states have greater rates of change in government than the federal government - so what makes federal government so stagnant?

Poll : Preferred Churn Rate for Federal Government

Stagnant Government

Since World War II, the party in government has changed five times. This does not include when John McEwan held government as part of the Coalition for a month in 1967. As this was contiguous with the coalition holding power. Five times in fifty years is a low turn over. In Australian Politics and Government which was edited by Jeremy Moon and Campbell Sharman, a table in the appendix only records four changes in government being due to elections. This is since 1901. Of all the elections that have been held, only four have led to a change in government. Just four, in forty one elections .

The states are no better;

• NSW has had five changes in government since 1939.
• Queensland has had five changes in government since 1942.
• South Australia has had six changes in government since 1938.
• Tasmania has had six changes in government since 1937.
• Victoria has had thirteen changes in government since 1945.
• Western Australia has had eight changes in government since 1945.

Victoria and South Australia both had minority governments for many years which lead to great volatility. For Victoria this period was between 1945 and 1958. Once the minority government period was over, the process fell back to approximately ten year for a party to be in power.

If we compare the states to the federal government in changes of parties in power since 1975.

• The Commonwealth has had two changes in government.
• NSW has had four changes in government.
• Queensland has had five changes in government.
• South Australia has had three changes in government.
• Tasmania has had four changes in government.
• Victoria has had three changes in government.
• Western Australia has had three changes in government.
• ACT has had four changes in government.
• Northern Territory has had one change in government.

It becomes obvious, that other than the Northern Territory, the rate of change in federal government is less than the states. The question is; Why is incumbency such a big advantage at the federal level.

We should compare the number of elections held since 1975 at the federal and state levels.

• 12 Commonwealth elections
• 10 Queensland elections
• 9 NSW elections
• 9 Victorian elections
• 9 South Australian elections
• 9 Tasmanian elections
• 8 Western Australian elections
• 8 Northern Territory elections.
• 6 ACT elections.

Finally the electoral changes in government as a percentage of the number of elections. Rate of change (churn rate) since 1975 in increasing order;

• 13% Northern Territory
• 17% Commonwealth
• 33% Victoria
• 33% South Australia
• 37% Western Australia
• 44% NSW
• 44% Tasmania
• 50% Queensland
• 67% ACT

The Northern Territory has the lowest rate of change, with the federal government a close second. The most competitive elections are the Australian Capital Territory's, with Queensland coming in second.

Incumbency

All the Australian forms of government model the Westminster system of responsible government, and its inevitable embedding of the executive arm of government in the legislative. A hack from the sixteenth century to route around the executive power of the monarch. But since this is comparing the federal government to the state governments, this is not an advantage unique to the federal form of government.

Nor can the bicameral or unicameral forms of government been seen as forms of differentiation. The Northern Territory which has the lowest rate of change since 1975 is unicameral, but so is the ACT which has the highest rate of change. The Federal governments low rate of change is in a bicameral system that has had a third party holding the balance of power in the upper house.

So where does the federal government differ from the states? Unfortunately I don't know enough to speculate.

I know that calling early elections gives a huge advantage to the incumbent, this also allows the government to control the initial narrative of the election. Other incumbency advantages include controlling the public purse and manipulating government departments and information for electoral gain. But again, the states also do this, but maybe not to the same dramatic effect as the federal government.

Churn, Churn, Churn

Either way, the churn rate at the Federal level is too low . Fixed term elections need to be introduced, as well as term limits on the Prime Minister position. The term limit on the Prime Minister needs to become constitutional legislation, rather than statutory, so a future Prime Minister cannot remove it when it becomes inconvenient.

The risk is we may fall into the same entropy of the British system, where the advantage is so huge that a Prime Minster remains in power for almost a generation. Australia has had one such Prime Minister, and it is not healthy for democracy. Term limits save politicians from themselves. They are a necessary limitation in government.

cam