Prev
Next

It’s Time - to scrap three year terms

Leo Shanahan

by Leo Shanahan

19 May 05:45am

Must Reads

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project - this is a caption

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

41

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics - this is a caption

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

60

Please enter your password - this is a caption

Please enter your password

39

Filed under: David Cameron, Election 2010, Elections, Kevin Rudd, Politics, Tony Abbott

43 comments

We’re now entering a Twilight Zone on our electoral calendar.

These two had to wait a while, but maybe it paid off. Photo: AFP

The bizarre formulation of federal three year terms will force the Federal Government go to the polls before the NSW Iemma/Rees/Keneally Governments, despite the fact this triumvirate have given the people of NSW one of the worst governments in the state’s history.

Kevin Rudd was elected six months after Morris Iemma and will have to face the electorate at least six months before Kristina Keneally, despite being a federal government with greater responsibility and a more complex agenda, the black comedy of Macquarie Street has been heritage listed till next March.

In the terms of constitutional and political debates in this country the three year federal term has become the poor cousin to the republic, and that’s saying something given, after years of committed service, the republic has been moved to a far corner office to work on a series of “long-term research projects” with no foreseeable deadline. We just have to take it out to lunch once in a while.

I can’t help but think what we’ve recently witnessed in the UK has something to do with its four year terms, a time period that allows for more long-term change in government and opposition. Regardless it’s about time we made the switch from three year to four year terms, and preferably those terms would be fixed.

So much of politics in Australia is dogged by the constant electioneering that Governments are forced to embark upon.

This is reflected not only in political rhetoric but in policy as well, the two cross pollinating into a weird half breed that can take on the worst characteristics of both.

That’s not to say that we don’t share many characteristics of comparable democracies in this sense, but the less time a Government has seems to make matters worse, and you don’t need to look any further than our current Government and our Opposition.

The CPRS is a good case in point. In the lead up to the last federal election Kevin Rudd called climate change “the greatest moral challenge of our time” and then failed to either implement the CPRS or call an election once it was defeated in the Senate.

But rather than thinking about Rudd’s decision as not wanting to go a double dissolution election too early on the ETS, what about thinking about it in terms of not wanting to go to an election too close to a normal half senate election?

Rudd was spooked by Abbott’s “great big new tax campaign” on the issue and shelved the policy so an election wouldn’t be fought on it. But what if Rudd had more time to sell it? And, more importantly, what if Abbott had to defend his position for longer rather than just vote it down and wait till an impending election and point to a Government that can’t get anything done. This scenario can be rerun in a series of failed Rudd Government policy.

You can make a federal government look extremely ineffective by continually voting down legislation and wait for an election to roll around.

This is not to let the Rudd Government off lightly in its failure with the CPRS and he could simply have put an election where his mouth was.

First term Government’s are able to successfully force their agenda. In Howard’s first term he was able to introduce welfare, gun and waterfront reform, sold Telstra, overhauled HECS and went to an election with the GST.

But rarely do Government’s possess such a margin for error that Howard’s 96 landslide gave him, and despite overcoming 11 years of Coalition rule Rudd doesn’t have the same advantage in the amount of seats he could lose at his first election.

The role of the 24-hour news cycle is also important to consider when talking about three year terms.

The proliferation of news and opinion websites (such as this one) and 24 hour TV news means that Government’s (and Oppositions) live hand to mouth trying to manage the intensity of the daily news cycle.

Whilst it is true that a week is a long time in politics, when you have to feed the beast day in day out three years can go by pretty quickly without effecting much long-term change.

Of course the Government has to buy into this as well, and once you set a precedent of being so reactive to media like Rudd has, you can’t very well turn around and say go away.

There’s some great research into why scrapping three year terms is a good idea (this done a few years ago by the Parliamentary Library is worth a read), personally my preference is for four year fixed terms.

It’s not an original proposal, nor one that will solve a lot of the problems in our system, but it’s worth tossing around next time you take the republic out to lunch.

Most commented

431Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
390There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
336Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
266Who murdered the Arts degree?
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...

43 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Mark says:

      07:20am | 19/05/10

      The UK Parliament is elected for a maximum five year term, the PM having discretion to call an election at any time within that period. The US has four year fixed terms.

      Reply
    • Leo Shanahan

      Leo Shanahan says:

      08:09am | 19/05/10

      Thanks Mark,
      yep you’re right five years is the UK maximum term, but generally speaking there is an election every four years.

    • John A Neve says:

      07:29am | 19/05/10

      Fixed four year terms is surely the way to go.  How can any government function well if it’s looking over it’s shoulder all the time?

      Under our current system I’d suggest long term planning is well nigh impossible. A new government moves in, it takes up to six months to settle in, then six months out from an election. planning for the election starts. So in fact we only have two years of constructive time if we are lucky.

      Surely the electorate deserves better?

      Reply

    • Sarah says:

      08:16am | 19/05/10

      The electorate doesn’t deserve better. It gets the government it votes for.

      How can any government function well if it is NOT looking over its shoulder all the time?

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      08:39am | 19/05/10

      John Neve :  Yes , you are absolutely correct on this matter John . This has been a personal contention of mine for many years . Regardless
      of which party governs , a four year term is barely enough to allow time for legislation of policy for which the respective parties are mandated.
      The end result of three year terms is unfinished business and rushed legislation which in reality , requires more time for consideration for the benefit of all Australians.
      Your assessment of six months to settle in and six months to prepare for the next election ,  is spot on ,  and the losers are the people because the reality is a paltry two years of rushed legislation, which results in poor government.
      Yes John , the electorate does deserve better.

    • Dan says:

      11:03pm | 19/05/10

      Sarah, if the government is forever looking over its shoulder, it can’t set out long-term policy. We shouldn’t have an electoral system based on fear and paranoia.

      IMO three years is too short. We should have four years, although I’m not convinced it needs to be fixed.

    • Tom R says:

      07:40am | 19/05/10

      > “I can’t help but think what we’ve recently witnessed in the UK has something to do with its four year terms”

      Point of pedantry: the UK actually has five-year maximum terms. But British PMs usually go every four years, partly to synchronise with local council elections (like 1979, also 2010) and partly because waiting too long to “drop the writ” (as Gordon Brown did this time), until the statutory expiry date looms, can look like political cowardice.

      Reply

    • Adam says:

      07:40am | 19/05/10

      4 years is optimal. 5 is too long.

      Reply

    • Jeremy says:

      07:42am | 19/05/10

      What a terrible, undemocratic idea.

      Governments should be able to govern whether or not there’s an election coming. Four year terms just give them longer to behave badly without the public getting a choice - Leo even talks about the terrible NSW government, that’s had four years with the public unable to do anything about it.

      Fixed terms are a great idea, but no more than 3 years.

      Reply

    • Sarah says:

      08:14am | 19/05/10

      Argument against 4 year fixed terms is unassailable and summed up in one phrase:  NSW

    • Dani says:

      10:49am | 19/05/10

      Sarah - i’d hardly say it was unassailable. A four year fixed term means that if a terrible govt is elected, you have no way to get rid of them for four years…
      Isn’t that what NSWs problem is now? They want an election now, not at some mysterious fixed future date.

    • Julie Coker-Godson says:

      01:48pm | 19/05/10

      Here, here!  I couldn’t agree more.  The poor NSW voter even put out a plea to the Governor-General to intervene but she said she was unable to assist.  No way should we have 4 year terms.  Oh how I wish we could have been able to get rid of this lot we have now in NSW but it is not to be until March next year and I will be waiting with my cricket bat!

    • Steely Dan says:

      02:29pm | 19/05/10

      @ Jeremy

      I don’t think it’s undemocratic.  There’s nothing magically more democratic about 3-year terms as opposed to two or even one-year terms. 

      It’s about strinking a balance between regular accountability and efficiency.  Dropping the number of elections means reducing the number of departmental re-shuffles (which happen whether the govt is ousted or not), and that will improve public sector efficiency.  Nothing wastes more public service time than the seemingly obligatory administrative shuffle that happens after every election.  I’m for four-year terms, five years would be pushing it.

    • Sarah says:

      05:32pm | 19/05/10

      I think we are in furious agreement… Except for @Steely Dan. Not sure I get that arguemnt. We should have less elections so that politicians don’t interfere with the public service so often because the meddling makes the public service less efficient?  Yes Sir Humphrey…

    • weeny says:

      08:30am | 19/05/10

      3 years is quite long enough of the RUDD government, thanks you so lets leave it as it is.

      Reply

    • Andrew says:

      12:31pm | 19/05/10

      Totally agree, let’s limit the damage!

    • Castro says:

      08:41am | 19/05/10

      Leo, I have been a keen follower of your articles in the Punch since the beginning.  For the first time, however, I disagree with you completely.

      The farcical situation you mention at the beginning of your article is the result of NSW mistakenly going to four years.  NSW is an example of why four years is too long.  The other example you use, Britain, is even worse.  Why would we take anything from the worst democracy in the English speaking world?  The ridiculously long five year terms in Britain explains why they have only had two governments (four if you count Major as separate from Thatcher, and likewise Brown/Blair) in thirty years.  That is not democracy.

      The government should face the voters as often as possible.  If they are doing a good job they will be re-elected, if not, turfed out.

      As an old Canberran, you should be aware of the horror many felt when John Stanhope was inflicted on the ACT again (thanks very much Greens).  He was voted in for another four years: too long!

      Reply

    • Newcastle Lady says:

      09:21am | 19/05/10

      I agree with you Castro about N.S.W, 4 years is way to long. Most of us would like Labor to go today. Much has been said of Keneally’s popularity, but its not her will be voting for. She seems nice enough and I am sure she tries her best, but the rest of her disfunctional Party drag any chance she has down. We will vote on the issues that affect us , not on how nice Keneally is or looks.

    • DG says:

      10:14am | 19/05/10

      “The government should face the voters as often as possible.”

      I disagree with this sentiment because it rewards short term populist policy. As Leo pointed out, politicians are on the air 24/7 and have taken to playing populist politics - this is true for both Mr Rudd and Mr Howard - in the absence of investment in infrastructure or the provision of services.

      There is little incentive to undertake expensive, long term, infrastructure projects (for example), when you can instead just hand everyone in the electorate a tax cut (Mr Howard’s preferred option) or post them a cheque for a few hundred dollars (as exploited by Mr Rudd). Short term ‘goals’ are consistent with the game of politics as adjudicated by the daily papers that need to have a story to sell, they are not, necessarily, conducive to good Government.

      I appreciate that an incompetent government locked in for a long term would be detrimental to the national interests - however that’s why we have a GG. That person is expected to have the courage to stand up and say “Enough is enough, it’s time for the public to decide how they wish to progress from this point”.

      It is worth noting at this point, As with most ‘modern’ democracies, the actual number of voters in favour of the major parties is fairly close. You have strong seats for both, and some marginal seats where the numbers are divided by 1 or 2 percent. Inevitably there will be a majority that did not vote for the Government (we have independents and minor parties), Accordingly any Government will be loudly criticised by a majority of the population who did not vote for them -  this must be taken into consideration when considering the role of the GG.

      Simply, sending a Government to the polls on a regular basis is redundant - it is neither practical nor desirable that the electorate should vote on every issue separately. While ideologically I would support such a policy, it is simply not plausible in the real world.

      Regular elections are a defacto “issue by issue” electoral process - Even the current system is used by the Government to claim a mandate on any number of things that have been raised during the electoral cycle (even though it is clear that the electorate does not support nor refute any particular policy on election day).

    • LFG says:

      10:13am | 19/05/10

      The more politicians have to face the people, the more likely they are to do a proper job. Three years is more than enough for them to get their acts together. We should be prepared to votes as many times as it takes us to get good politicians - something we don’t have in Australia currently.

      Reply

    • Michael says:

      02:03pm | 20/05/10

      The more politicians have to face the people, the more likely they are to enact populist short-term band-aid policies in order to keep their jobs. if we’re sick of spin now, it would get a whole lot worse if there were shorter times between elections.

    • AJ says:

      10:48am | 19/05/10

      If you can’t deliver in 3 years (or 2 effectively), I doubt you can in 4 years (or 3 effectively). However, if you are making a mess of everything, an extra year is a very bad idea.
      I am sure that you can make a difference in as little as a year. You don’t have to start working on policies etc. once you are in government.
      If you base your election campaign on well defined policies instead of promises, you can immediately start implementing.
      But then again, to do this, you need a brain ...

      Reply

    • Ronk says:

      11:09am | 19/05/10

      Rudd does NOT “have to face the electorate at least six months before Kristina Keneally”. Rudd can call the election for as late as the end of April if he wants to. It’s just that most commentators think he will probably call the election for late this year because he won’t want to have it during the pre-Xmas shopping season or during the summer school holidays and won’t want to have it close to the NSW election because the voters might confuse his government’s re election campaign with that of the NSW government (which has to go to the polls on the last Sat in March unless there is a no-confidence motion passed earlier).

      3 years is plenty long enough. We were the first country in the world to have guaranteed triennial elections more than 150 years ago. Just because some countries are still yet to take this progreessive democratic reform doesn’t mean we have to slide backwards and join them.

      Reply
    • Leo Shanahan

      Leo Shanahan says:

      12:20pm | 19/05/10

      Hi Ronk,
      yep you’re correct that Rudd does not have to face an election before the end of the year, but it would be terribly bad look given the convention to hold an election within three years.
      It is also not just commentators who say the election will be before the end of the year, Rudd himself is now on the record saying it will be this year, last week in Canberra he guaranteed it to the party room and it was then relayed to journalists.

    • Ronk says:

      10:57am | 20/05/10

      Leo, what is this “convention to hold an election within 3 years”?  You made that up too. No less than TEN times a Commonwealth government has called an election more than 3 years after the previous election. Most recently the Howard govt in 2001. I don’t recall anyone, even Howard’s most vehement opponents, saying that this was “a terribly bad look”.

      It’s true Rudd said that he will call it sometime this year. But then he also said that his ETS was the most important moral challenge of our time. You have a refreshingly naive trust in politcians’ “guarantees”.

    • Richard says:

      11:55am | 19/05/10

      The longer the government can rule without being held accountable, the more they will choose to line their own pockets and pander to niche special interest groups. What a terrible idea to fix in longer terms!

      Reply

    • Willy K says:

      12:04pm | 19/05/10

      No way.  This govt is a prime example of why there should be 3 year non-fixed terms.

      An L-plate govt that should be turfed in the minimum time possible.  Can you imagine the damage 4 or 5 years of Rudd would do to our economy and social fabric?

      Reply

    • Rose says:

      01:29pm | 20/05/10

      Rudd is far less dangerous than Abbott. I would give Rudd another three years solely on the premise that the alternative is far too dangerous. Besides which, Howard already destroyed our social fabric, his every man for himself ideology pretty much destroyed most of what was good about Australia, and his neglect of development and infrastructure is unforgivable.

    • Tom H says:

      12:23pm | 19/05/10

      What would happen to senator’s terms if the lower house were switched to elections every 4 years?

      If a half-senate election were still to accompany each lower house election, we would be stuck with the absurd tomfoolery of clowns like Fielding for 8 years at a time. No thanks.

      Reply

    • Steve_of_Cornubia says:

      12:41pm | 19/05/10

      Despite believing Rudd is a terrble PM, I would be happy to have four-year terms in Australia. If that were true now, Rudd would still be overseas, sipping champagne and rubbing shoulders with international figures. He only rediscovered Australia when the election loomed.

      Reply

    • Dale says:

      01:34pm | 19/05/10

      I think almost everyone here is missing the real issue. It is in the interest of politicians to give handouts and quick non planned ideas to the public in the bid to stay in favour. Currently the government has to fear being thrown out for implementing a project that will benefit in 5-10 years. Why is there no infrastructure planning for the future? Well if you spend money on something like an NBN then there will be less short term tax breaks and handouts. Why not replace all the old water pipes with new ones when you can be seen to be building a new desalination plant?

      I think a strong King or Dictator is required soon or our future outlook is not good

      Reply

    • Democrat says:

      02:07pm | 19/05/10

      Agree entirely with you that fixed 4 year terms is the way to go.  The problem is what to do with the Senate.  They currently have 6 year terms with half retiring every 3 years.  No way should Senators be elected for 8 year terms.  The solution is fixed 4 year terms for both houses - with the Senate still be elected with proportional representation and thus guaranteeing smaller parties still being represented.
      Other points on a Double Dissolution.  The constitution does not allow a DD within 6 months of a normal General Election so the last date for a DD being called this year would be early August.  A DD held before July this year would have meant only a 2 year parliament as the Senators elected before July this year would, under the constitution, have commenced their terms on July 1st 2009.  To avoid separate elections for the House and the Senate this would have required another election for the House and the Senate in 2 years time.

      Reply

    • krull says:

      04:59pm | 19/05/10

      True reform will only come when we adopt four year fixed terms and also adopt proportional representation in the lower house.

      Reply

    • marley says:

      08:26pm | 19/05/10

      Why fixed terms, regardless of length?  I don’t see that it’s particularly reformist. The US, with it’s rigidly fixed terms, isn’t necessarily a model we want to follow. 

      Proportional representation (depending on how it’s defined) I could agree with.

    • Nigel Catchlove says:

      08:44pm | 19/05/10

      And the NSW Government with it’s four year terms has been a stellar exemplar of the ‘true reform’ of which you speak ...

      Good governance is in no way linked to the term of government, we have had stunning reform in Victoria under Jeff Kennet, stultifying incompetence under Carr/Iemma/Reece/Keneally, arrogance under Howard and deception under Rudd.  The length of terms are irrelevant - good governments will generally be rewarded and bad governments will be turfed out (with the exception of NSW where the opposition has been ineffective).  In that State, the government is so bad that anyone but Labor will win the next election.

    • nosthow says:

      06:39pm | 19/05/10

      A “flock” of bananas Penbo ? A new unit of measurement perchance ?

      Reply

    • Matt says:

      07:16am | 20/05/10

      Can I just ask what is so bad about NSW?

      This whole “state in peril”, “dreadful government” thing is more of a media beat-up than anything. The only problem NSW Labor has really had is believing anything written in the Tele or the SMH, and jumping at shadows.

      I catch a bus to work every day - heaps of them, they’re really clean and always on time. The same when I used to catch a train to my old office, or out to the footy. And whenever I drive around the city, sure there’s a bit of traffic, but can I point out where’s more than a million people here, so there’s bound to be a few cars? And have you ever been to Mumbai or London? (Or Corro drive in Brisbane on a Friday, for that matter…)

      My wife and I had a baby last year and as far as NSW Health goes, I can’t sing their praises enough. It’s an awesome system. And to use the other analogy, a relative lost a leg in India recently and let’s just say that despite being in a major teaching hospital there the standard of care in Australia is pretty damn good.

      As for education, the schools are all pretty good and the number of parents giving their kids extra tutoring to try to get them into selectives is a fair comment on how good the system is.

      It seems to me the only people who REALLY want an early election are the journos, because it will give them something to write about. Pretty hard to get anyone to read a story that says “NSW in ok shape, everyone reasonably happy”.

      Jeez, get over it people. Have a good hard look at what you’re whinging about.

      And if anyone still thinks this is a defective Government, as someone who grew up during the Joh years in Queensland - once again the Maroons are the champions.

      Reply

    • Ian F says:

      09:23am | 20/05/10

      Longer parliamentary terms primarily serve the interests of politicians and renders them less accountable to electors (and preselectors).  It just allows bad governments to linger well past their ‘use-by’ date.

      State Parliaments often have four year terms (with the exception of NSW this was largely decided the politicians, not their electorates).  A challenge for four-year term advocates is to cite the fourth year achievements of the Kirner Government (Vic), the Lawrence Government (WA), the Arnold Government (SA) and prospectively the Keneally ‘Government’ in NSW. 

      Incidentally, Federal four-year terms were put to a referendum in 1988 and the proposal was overwhelmingly rejected.

      PS: the US House of Representatives has two-year fixed terms.

      Reply

    • mags says:

      09:56am | 20/05/10

      I agree that there should be fixed terms to elections, at a date predetermined as in America. That way everyone knows when the elections will be held and elected govenrments know how much time they have to implement their policies. Good or bad, they must go the length of their term. It should not be uo to the incumbent government to determone the election date.

      Having said that,  I believe that it’s pointless moaning about dud governments because the will of the majority, under our electoral system, pouts them there. It would benefit the whole nation if people thought seriously about who gets their vote. Too many people are polarised by the two major parties who both have their blind faithful. The problem is that we are not rtaching our children about our political system, what the main differences between them are etc. All they get is what their( mostly) Labor unionist teachers tell them at school. We should encourage our children to rsearch Australian politics before they reach voting age so that they can make an informed choice in something which can have efffect for decades.

      Reply

    • Ronk says:

      05:29pm | 20/05/10

      mags, you seem to assume without any evidence that the 2 major parties have a much higher proportion than all other parties do, of “uninformed” people who only vote for them because their are “blind faithful” who don’t understand our political system. The only reason a minor party gets to be a major party is that a lot of people vote for it. I’m sure the vast majority of them know exactly what they’re doing and why they’re doing it. Your “small parties good, big parties bad” idea is itself just “blind faith”.

    • John A Neve says:

      08:44am | 21/05/10

      Ronk,
      While part of what you say may be correct. There is another reason why the major parties are the major parties. It’s called time, they have been around longer, mum and dad used to vote for them, so did uncle Sam and grandfather. All you ever hear as a child was Labor, Liberal or National. We are creatures of habit, what was good for our parentsis good enough for us, sad isn’t it?

    • Ronk says:

      09:53pm | 14/06/10

      John, I don’t know anybody who votes for a party because his parents voted for it. In fact many people I know would refuse on principle to vote for a party their parents voted for. And many of us have no idea who our parents voted for because they never told us.

    • David says:

      03:41am | 21/05/10

      the term length is irrelevant the cause of 24 hour electionionering is a 24hour news cycle and policy is sold in 5 second bytes because that is the attention span of the electorate. The media and the people are at fault not necessarily the term length longer terms haven’t really bought Britan any advantage over Australia (and it’s rare to get a one term government anyway essentially making it a 6 year term). Also you can add to the list partisan (both sides) journalist who don’t even make an effort of objective reporting.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 09:27PM

Dementor doing a good job for sweden #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 09:11PM

Ukraine song pinches chord progression from The Verve's Bittersweet Symphony. Fo real #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 09:00PM

RT @GerardDaffy: @antsharwood all the talk over there is the grannies will win.they entered to get a church built,feelgood story

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 08:57PM

These peole insult my grandmothjer, who was born in minsk, belarus #sbseurovision

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

by Claire Connelly

41

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

I’d like to be able to say that sharing the world’s largest radio telescope with South Africa…

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

by Laurie Oakes

60

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

When North Queensland Liberal MP George Christensen got the idea of launching a new political organisation…

Please enter your password

by Lucy Kippist

39

Please enter your password

Help! I’ve succumbed to a crippling modern illness that can strike at any moment. Symptoms include:…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed