So the Queensland Premier, Peter Beattie, wants four-year terms for Parliament. He is proposing a referendum on the subject next year at the same time as a referendum on the republic which would have to take place in Queensland if the republic referendum passes federally.
Queensland is the only state to have three-year terms. All other states have four-year terms. The ACT has a fixed three-year term.
Mr Beattie would like a fixed four-year term. The Opposition’s initial reaction was for an unfixed term. Queensland had a referendum in March, 1991, which rejected four-year unfixed terms by a modest margin.
There are grounds for changing the present three-year unfixed term. But the main objection is not its length, but the fact that it is not fixed.
Mr Beattie said that under present arrangements governments spent two years governing and a whole year trying to be re-elected. That sort of election engineering is true up to a point. However, the worst sort of electoral manipulation comes with the unfixed term, where the Premier – the only person who knows the election date – can use that information to get an unfair advantage over his or her opponents.
There is much to be said for the fixed term. Business and the public service always know when the election will be held. Whether it is a four- or three-year term is of less importance. There are arguments both ways. A four-year term, politicians argue, will allow a longer view. A three-year term makes politicians more accountable and enables a poor government to be thrown out more quickly.
Given that Queensland had a referendum on a four-year-term (albeit unfixed) such a short time ago, it might be wise not to test the public’s patience again. It might be better to secure the fixed three-year term, though it is unlike that any politician will ever act to reduce his own power. More likely Mr Beattie is putting the four-year term up to increase the Premier’s power and adding the fixed element as a sop to the public to get the longer term through.