Fixed four-year terms would improve our political system

History says that the structure of a political system is at least as important as decisions made within it. It's better to rely on the certainty of a strong system than the uncertainties of a strong leader. Over the decades some leaders will be good, some bad. A strong system provides ongoing benefits.

It's worth thinking about how our system can be improved. And while it is strong overall, there's one aspect that is glaringly weak. Our parliaments are elected to serve for up to three years. Since Federation, though, the average term has been a little more than 2½ years, as prime ministers have wide discretion to call an election at a time of their choosing.

These short terms are out of step with the rest of the world. Most democracies elect parliaments for four or five years - only a very small number have unfixed three-year terms.

There are several advantages to a fixed four-year term in Australia:

Governments would get more done. It's hard to implement complex, long-term policy reform in the two years or so between elections.

A fixed four-year term reduces the impact of short-term political drama and allows for a more strategic approach to decision making. Economic activity would increase. Businesses and consumers tend to hold off on investment during election periods and the phoney war that precedes them.

Consistency with the states. Every state except Tasmania now has fixed four-year terms.

People on all sides of politics have called for federal parliamentary terms to be extended, going back as far as 1927. We don't have unfixed three-year terms because modern Australia decided it was a good idea. We have them because (a) that's what was decided in 1901 and (b) it's very difficult to change the constitution. So unfixed three-year terms linger on.

As soon as petty politics intervenes in a referendum process it's as good as dead. So, ultimately, this proposal can only succeed if both the major parties get behind it. That's a high bar to jump - but so be it. There are two key issues arising from a change - what are the consequences for Senate terms, and in what circumstances other than at the end of four years can an election be held?

Currently, senators serve six-year terms, roughly coinciding with two terms of the House. With the House terms extending to four years, the logical option is to extend the Senate to eight years.

The draft bill provides for two main scenarios when an election could be held outside the four-year cycle: a double dissolution of both the House and Senate in accordance with the current rules, or a successful motion of no confidence against the government in the House. The bill also contains a catch-all provision that allows the governor-general to act in accordance with constitutional conventions in dissolving Parliament. Beyond that, there is no capacity for an early election.

While I've consulted extensively with constitutional experts, I am sure that people will have ideas on how the bill can be improved. I am eager to hear them. Once I have arrived at a final version, my intention is to seek to have the bill legislated, and for a referendum to be held at the next election. The new system would apply from the following election, likely to be held around 2022.

If we move to fixed four-year terms we will have better government, greater political certainty, more business investment and a stronger economy. These won't just last a year or two but will be ongoing. That's a big deal, more meaningful than pretty much any policy issue arising in any year.

Constitutional change is a tough road to go down - but when the benefits are so great, we should pursue it with all vigour.