Incumbent prime ministers have called elections, on average, every 2.59 years over the past century, rather than go full three-year terms, according to Fairfax Media analysis based on Australia Institute data.

On Tuesday, Liberal MP David Coleman released a draft private members bill, which would introduce fixed, four-year terms.

Mr Coleman used an opinion piece for Fairfax Media to call for a referendum coinciding with the next election, due in 2019, saying the plan would limit political drama and promote strategic decision-making.

The Australian Institute of Company Directors, a long-time advocate for the change, said they were "very supportive", arguing that current political discourse is weighed down with too many elections, which bring distractions and short-term thinking.

"We think the essence of good governance is supporting the long-term view. And a three-year term, which is usually two-and-a-half, hardly gives you that," Elizabeth Proust, chairman of the AICD, told Fairfax Media.

"You'd get people thinking about infrastructure, energy policy in a way which took them beyond polls and opinion. I think that if we can get to a four-year term, hopefully we can get governments to focus on planning in the national interest."

Ms Proust rejected the argument that extended terms brought the risk of more damage from bad parliaments or governments, contending: "On that basis, we should give them only one year and see how they go."

Advocates point out that, in Australia, all jurisdictions except Tasmania and the federal government have adopted fixed, four-year terms. They also compared Australia to similar democracies internationally that largely have four or five-year terms.

Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry boss James Pearson said the first year of a term requires settling in, with the last year lost to election preparation.

"So a four-year term would double the period in the middle when governments are willing to undertake substantive reform," he said.

"Four-year terms will help governments overcome some risk-aversion by allowing them to ventilate ideas, have a public debate and settle on rigorous policy solutions, rather than having to rush to action. We would need to think carefully about the implications for Senate terms, because eight-year terms appear excessive."

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has also reiterated his support for the introduction of longer, fixed terms but said the country faced more urgent issues.

"I'm a supporter of fixed, four-year terms. It's part of Labor's platform," he said.

"It's not the biggest issue for me right now though. I'm focused on jobs, Medicare and housing affordability."

The Labor Party's national policy platform states that "constitutional reform should . . . allow simultaneous, fixed, four-year terms for the House of Representative and the Senate".

In 2007, Kevin Rudd pledged a referendum on the matter - even committing $27 million to the cause - but later abandoned it.

John Howard's cabinet considered a similar plan in 2006, while former Labor leader Kim Beazley mooted a deal to secure four-year terms, with the prime minister retaining the flexibility to set election dates.

Former Victorian premier Steve Bracks said longer terms would help restore some faith in politics.

"Uncertainty is always factored in around election times and it is even worse when you don't know when an election will be called.

"It was a popular measure when we brought it in in Victoria. I think you can easily sell this to the public as a fairer, better system, enabling governments to act with more certainty," he said.

Follow us on Facebook