There has been no successful constitutional change for 40 years (1977) and no attempt which has reached a referendum for nearly 20 (1999). What is happening in our culture and politics?

Taken individually there are always arguments for and against referendum proposals. Australia's record of referendum success is extremely poor (eight out of 46) and there are many reasons for this, including some weak propositions wisely rejected by the people.

But it is hard to escape the conclusion that despite our radical self-image we are a conservative nation and that our conservatism is exacerbated by the adversarial structure of our party politics. When these factors are matched with the double majority for constitutional change set by the founding fathers it is perhaps no wonder that our record is so poor.

But once upon a time that did not deter governments of all persuasions from having a go. It is a shame that is no longer the case.

Now when any ideas for constitutional reform are raised both cultural and institutional conservatism spring into play immediately. The default position is the status quo. The responses are so predictable and dismissive. Now is not the time. It is not a high priority for government. Bread and butter issues like housing prices and cost of living are more important. There is no popular groundswell for reform. Yet there are a range of sensible possibilities on the table.

The general reaction to the many issues raised by Section 44, which deals with eligibility to stand for parliament, is that this section is anachronistic and badly showing its age in the modern world. The issues dealt with by the section are serious but the consequences of its application are that members of parliament are being ruled ineligible to sit not because of gross breaches of its spirit but unintended smaller technical breaches. What has been uncovered is not really allegiance to a foreign power or financial corruption through holding an office of profit under the crown.

Several parliamentary enquiries have detailed its flaws and recommended amendments. In response, there have been those who have argued that the intent is clear and that it is just a case of aspiring parliamentarians learning to live by the rules. Some of the initial responses from those political parties not immediately implicated have been self-righteous. As the net has widened to include the bigger parties they have at least been taught some humility.

But the more dispiriting responses have been those that conclude that anything to do with protecting the interests of aspiring and sitting parliamentarians would not stand a chance of being accepted by the community. The standing of our politicians has sunk so low now that anything emanating from them would be condemned out of hand as self-interest.

Some of the reactions to the call by Opposition Leader Bill Shorten for four-year parliamentary terms for the House of Representatives have been similar. Despite the Australia-wide trend for state parliaments to move from three to four years and the satisfaction that has followed such moves, some people are too cynical and others are too tired to want to do anything about it. Yet our federal parliamentary terms are clearly too short and this probably interferes with good government.

In the first camp are some government ministers who smell a rat in anything the opposition leader says even though there is no obvious political gain to be had. There is clearly a case for bipartisanship. No change will happen otherwise. Yet his call is dismissed as just something an opposition leader says when they are trying to get an edge on the government. Never give an opposition leader a break!

In the second camp are those who see some worth in the proposition but doubt whether any proposal that extended the terms of those hated politicians could be justified to the Australian people. Bad governments would be entrenched! Senators would enjoy eight-year terms! So much for a willingness to think boldly about big structural reforms to our politics.

Both reform of Section 44 and the introduction of four-year terms are matters that should be relatively apolitical and unthreatening if handled sensibly. If Australians can't summon up the energy to tackle them then it bodes ill for the much bigger matters on our constitutional agenda like Indigenous recognition and having an Australian Head of State.

The Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader have an opportunity to work together on these reforms. Shorten is taking the lead presently, while Malcolm Turnbull is more cautious, but ultimately it doesn't matter who takes the initiative or who offers an olive branch to the other. The outcome is much more important. Shorten knows that without the support of Turnbull or his successor, if Labor wins the 2019 election, reform will be stymied. Working together they could be remembered as pioneers who turned around the structural and cultural impediments to change.

Leadership matters in this regard because one of the important cultural barriers is how poorly politicians are regarded by the rest of the community. Bold leadership will not just bring about these necessary constitutional changes but may transform for the better the way parliamentary politics in general is conducted. If that happens one outcome will be a healthier relationship between the community and parliament which may make even bolder thinking the norm in the future.

John Warhurst is an Emeritus Professor of Political Science at the Australian National University