Reform ideas must be on equal terms

Four-year federal parliamentary terms are a good idea, but a good idea doomed to drown in a quagmire of political differences, public suspicion and constitutional complexity.

Change simply will not occur unless there is enthusiastic bipartisan support for a model that allows a convincing argument to be put to the public which will break a run of referendum rejections.

This means translating support from various leaders in recent times, including Kevin Rudd, Bill Shorten and Malcolm Turnbull who were all prepared to look at four-year terms, into an electoral reform model acceptable to all the major parties.

Previous parliamentary committees have recommended four-year terms, states have introduced fixed terms and there was even a referendum put to the people in 1988 which was rejected.

Like the idea of Australia becoming a republic there is a general inclination to support it but the specific model is the stumbling block; there are divisions within the supporters, deep pockets of resistance and public suspicion of politicians seeking to increase their number, power or length of term.

The principal arguments for a four-year federal term are the same as for state four-year terms: governments have more time to implement reform, business has more certainty, it should contribute to leadership stability, and less time and money is spent on campaigns.

Australia is one of a handful of nations that still has a three-year federal term after most of the world moved to four or five-year terms, including the British parliament which moved away from its three-year terms more than 100 years ago.

There are genuine difficulties in changing to four-year terms because of the different terms for Australian senators and members of the House of Representatives, and the interplay between House and Senate elections.

But they are not insurmountable, only too easily exploited to ensure the fear of failure at a referendum kills the debate before it begins.