There is no logic in longer terms for federal government

A referendum is required because s28 of the Australian constitution stipulates a maximum of three-year terms for the House of Representatives but with flexibility to go earlier if needed.

Significantly, at federation, Australia did not follow the United Kingdom's then seven-year terms or the United States' four-year terms for presidents.

An argument for four-year terms is that it gives government more time to develop policies with a long-term view and less driven by the electoral cycle.

Governments would be more willing to take those responsible "tough" decisions without fear or an eye to the next election.

Another, according to the Museum of Democracy is that four-year fixed terms would mean fewer elections, save money, and reduce alleged voter election fatigue.

Four-year terms would also provide a more stable environment for business investment, stop disruptive speculation about election dates and remove an incumbent government's advantage on that score.

And last, as the Prime Minister reminded us, everyone is doing it - the states and territories and most countries overseas - so, why not Australia?

These arguments are made more as statements of faith, than based on real evidence.

For instance, countries with longer terms have not performed better than Australia in running their economies or implementing needed reforms.

Neither the United Kingdom and France with five-year terms nor the United States with four, are exemplars of good policy practice or reform initiatives.

Neither have Australian states or territories with their fixed four-year terms been more accountable, reined in overspending, reduced waste, or adopted a long-term view on anything.

They limp and react from crisis to crisis.

Four-year terms just give politicians more time to get away with broken election promises and ongoing mismanagement.

Anyway, if hard decisions are needed, is it not better in a democracy for governments to convince the electorate and gain their support, rather than making surprise announcements in the early recesses of a four-year term hoping the pain will be forgotten by the fourth year helped by big spending election sweeteners?

It is not three-year terms holding back reform but political will and the failure by successive governments to speak truth to the people about what has to be done.

As for the fatigue argument, surely no-one in a democracy should seriously complain about too many elections. The usual complaint was not having them. Try living in regimes where there are none or few.

Also, the voter fatigue argument ignores that Australia is one the few countries with compulsory voting. Should we jettison that and join those countries with declining voter turnout? There is no fatigue if you don't have to vote.

If more time is needed, perhaps Federal Parliament could sit longer.

Our Federal Parliament sits just 60 to 70 days a year - a third less than the American Congress, the UK House of Commons or the Canadian parliament.

As to the cost of elections, put that into perspective.

The last federal election cost $522 million - a lot of money but just $34 per voter - not much to pay for the right to choose a government in one of the world's best-run electoral systems. Compared to the last federal budget of $622 billion, it is a trifle.

Nor is there much evidence that elections are disruptive to business investment or confidence. Australia enjoys a stable investment environment.

It is excessive regulation, high costs and our poor industrial relations system, not three-year terms, that adversely impacts business.

Moreover, in those jurisdictions with fixed terms, the last year inevitably goes into election mode with governments unwilling to make decisions on anything for fear of losing voter support.

Lastly, do we really want to give the federal politicians one extra day in office, enjoying all those perks?

Do we really want our senators, like their NSW Upper House counterparts, to have eight-year terms?

Surely, we want our elected representatives to face the people often, not less, so we can hold them to account.

Albanese is right that achieving four-year terms would be "very difficult".

The Hawke government's 1988 referendum received only 33 per cent of the vote and was rejected in all states. Isn't it time the government moved on from recreational politics and got down to the real business of running the country?