Et Tu, Heralde

In case we weren't sure there are too many stupid people in the world and that the media does whatever they can to take their money, the Sun-Herald has proven it. What some claim to represent the greatest constitutional change in NSW's history is a farce generated by those with no right to instigate it and supported by those who must know that it will fail.

I'm getting the impression that I haven't read far enough to pick up on this before - I often only read a page or two to get the big things - but here's a rough outline for those in the same boat. The Herald is calling on voters to sign a petition stating that they should have a right to have an election called before the end of the fixed four-year term. This is done in the name of accountable government and democratic 'rights'. It also represents slander of the government from the media, which is theoretically objective, and designed to report on issues - not create them and not support them.

The bulk of the article is not so great a deal, but two things stand out. Firstly, the petition itself - more to come. Secondly, the statement of the Sun-Herald's support for the SMH's 'robust campaign to open public debate'. Great objectivity there.

The petition is a direct attack on the NSW government. Its reasons for promoting an election are not a claim that the current constitutional framework is failing, but one that the current government is failing. The constitution exists to prevent such action. Constitutional law is based on stability and definition of function - not on changes to suit opinions and breach of standard practice to achieve them. Currently, accountability is ensured through the media (when it acts responsibly), freedom of information laws and fixed terms. Through fixed terms a government cannot choose to call an election when it is at a high point, nor others lodge a vote of no confidence when they feel the government will be toppled.

If the government is failing, there are two things that can be done. The mainstream option is to wait until the end of the term, at which point their performance can be evaluated without such situational prejudices as the Herald is advocating. Should the government be so irresponsible as to breach the Constitution, the Governor can sack the Premier in the same way that the Governor-General can sack the Prime Minister. That is responsible, democratic and constitutional democracy. The Herald proposes this to be done in a flurry.

The timing of the petition is another show of bad taste, with the new Premier barely a week into the job. A month into Rees' premiership, voters indicated that while many were not pleased with his performance, a majority wanted to 'give him a go', as the Australian ideal would prescribe. Iemma was elected in 2007 based on the same ideal: NSW was not perfect, but the incumbent government was working on it. Keneally realises that things have not been a fairytale so far and is likewise going to do what she can to repair the damage and continue progress.

One question remains: why do both Keneally and O'Farrell support open discussion of this issue? Three reasons come to mind. Firstly, to get the Herald on side, since it is already displaying a willingness to breach principles in the interests of the editors and their political ideas. Secondly, to avoid alienating members of the general public who support the idea. Thirdly, and most importantly, because they know that it will fail. Mechanisms to ensure responsible government are already in place, and if there is any revision to be made it will be the reduction of four year terms to three year terms. Beyond that, there is no way in which a government can logically be led to decide that it will call an election based on public outcry against them, nor a logical mechanism by which a legal and objective election can be called by any group other than the government or one of its branches. Should one be fashioned, it will still need to gain popular support. From a political viewpoint, why not support the idea? It promises support from the masses in a policy that neither side will have to follow up on, only a repeat of the 1996 federal referendum: support for the idea without the ability to realise it.

I am not betrayed by my government, which is working with what resources it has to address the issues of the state. I am betrayed by the Herald's editors who think it their place to take an active political role when they are prescribed to report facts. To those who support this notion, I find relief in knowing that your voices will not be heard, or if they are, they will soon be forgotten. As there is no means provided by the Herald to show that its proposition is not supported, I hope that the watchdogs - other media and statutory bodies - will take note of this farce, and the editors be shown their place.