Why we're ready to switch to four-year terms for Federal Parliament

At the state level the following arguments were put forward to support a four-year term.

Four years allows for better policy making opportunities as three years (historically less in practice federally) means that governments, and ministers in particular, spend the first year settling in, the second implementing and putting forward various policy options and the third being heavily involved in trying to win yet another election.

From a planning, relationship and confidence in government perspective business strongly favours a four-year cycle. As the economy is heavily reliant on business confidence its view is important to the national interest.

For taxpayers, a four-year cycle means less money being spent on elections. The 2019 federal election cost approximately $372 million and the 2022 election around $522 million.

A longer electoral cycle responds to voter sentiment about the frequency of elections, particularly when they are asked to go to the polls early to enhance the government's chance of winning.

As all Australian states are operating successfully with four-year terms what might be constraining recent federal governments from trying to achieve the same.

Perhaps it is because the transition from three to four years is not straightforward and must involve change to the Australian constitution. This and other challenges have to be addressed, but just because a change is somewhat complicated does not mean it shouldn't be attempted and if necessary, repeatedly.

I say repeatedly as debate about the federal parliamentary term commenced pre-Federation. The colonies (except WA) settle on three-year terms for states and to achieve near consistency across the nation decided on a three-year electoral cycle for the Federal Parliament.

Since the early 1900s there have been many endeavours to lengthen the current 124-year-old, three-year maximum term. For example, various constitutional conventions have favoured extending the federal parliamentary cycle, a royal commission into the constitution (1927-29) recommended that it be increased to at least four years, and on several occasions the joint standing committee on electoral matters has recommended the adoption of four-yearly elections.

In 1988 a referendum was held to extend the parliamentary term. It failed. Four questions were put to voters in that referendum, the other three being fair elections, local government and rights and freedoms. No question received a majority "yes" vote.

The varied nature of the questions and the number asked may explain, in part, the outcome.

Despite the many failed attempts to increase the federal parliamentary term, I would argue that four-year parliamentary elections is now an idea whose time has come.

So, what are the challenges that need to be addressed to make it happen?

Clearly, a move to a four-year electoral cycle would require the strong support of the two major political parties and it would help if minor parties and independents also supported the change. The possibility of achieving such a consensus is currently high.

What may be a point of contention for the two major parties, however, is an accompanying adoption of fixed-term elections. Such a move would deny a prime minister the opportunity to decide when an election should be called. But should a PM maintain that discretion?

Several state premiers do not have it and have not experienced adverse or unintended consequences. Also, the certainty of when an election should be held is strongly favoured by voters.

A major challenge concerns the Senate. What should be its electoral cycle? Should it be shortened to four years to reflect MPs term in the House of Representatives, or should it be extended to eight years? Whatever the decision any variance to the existing arrangement would require constitutional change and hence a referendum.

So too would changing the electoral cycle of the House of Representatives as section 28 of the constitution states that "Every House of Representatives shall continue for three years from the first meeting of the House, and no longer, but may be sooner dissolved by the Governor-General."

This means that following the first sitting of the House post a federal election it is legally possible to call an early election at any time within the three-year electoral term.

Then there is the reaction of voters to another referendum, especially if the question being asked does not closely reflect the constitutional changes that would occur. There should be no doubt in the mind of voters as to the impact on them and the political system of a "yes" vote.

There is a strong possibility that a referendum to alter the constitution to allow for a four-year parliamentary term would at long last be successful. Such a referendum could be held at the same time as the next federal election thereby minimising the cost associated with referendums.

The current Prime Minister Anthony Albanese recently acknowledged that a three-year term federally is "too short" but is "difficult to change". He sees this as "unfortunate", particularly as all states now operate on a four-year cycle.

Prime Minister, I would suggest that the Australian people are ready for and up to this challenge, so please, in the national public interest, let's address these admittedly complex issues and move forward with this overdue change, and do so now.