The AGE argues that four-year fixed terms of parliament will allow the government to focus on developing and implementing long-term policies.
The Age has long advocated four-year fixed terms of parliament. The paper argues that the most compelling reason for this is that it would remove purely political calculations from election timing, and so increase the scope for governments to focus on developing and implementing long-term policies. With our federal parliaments running for an average of only about 2½ years, many budgets and policies are expedient, motivated by short-term political advantage rather than the long-term national good.
It also points out that the argument that a four-year term would make voters wait unduly before removing an unpopular and bad government is misplaced, because weve seen many competent, extended governments that were often unpopular at stages.
The AGE says one in three voters supports minor parties or independents due to the perception that personal interest is being placed ahead of national interest. Therefore, the paper argues that this is a chance to restore some public faith in the ability of our lawmakers to actually collaborate and compromise for the public good.
