The case for a four-year federal parliamentary term

Featured in Capital Brief on 17 November, 2025

In a recent speech to the UK Labour Party conference, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese noted that Australia will head to the polls twice during the first term of his British counterpart, Keir Starmer.

Perhaps said with a touch of professional envy, the remark highlighted a serious problem: Australia’s federal election cycle is too short.

Australia is one of only eight countries with a parliamentary term of three years or less. Our prime minister also decides when elections are held, rather than having a fixed date. In practice, this means a federal election campaign every two years and eight months on average.

Our short and unfixed terms keep governments in near-permanent campaign mode. Ministers turn over too quickly for policies to stick, and long-term reforms are often abandoned in the lead-up to elections. Economic growth declines in election years as businesses and the public service delay investments amid speculation over timing.

It also leaves the Commonwealth out of step with every other level of government. States, territories and councils all operate on four-year terms, and all except Tasmania have fixed election dates. The result is overlapping campaigns and weaker coordination on national priorities.

This all comes at a significant but often hidden cost. Research by Mandala Partners estimates that shifting to four-year terms with a fixed election date would deliver around $60 billion in benefits over 20 years.

Encouragingly, a parliamentary inquiry is now examining term lengths and fixed election dates, a rare and important step toward a potential referendum on extending parliamentary terms. The inquiry also offers a chance to tackle key design questions, from managing Senate terms to aligning election schedules with states and territories.

Experts giving evidence to the inquiry have pointed out that fixed election dates could be introduced through legislation without requiring a referendum. This provides a straightforward and achievable next step and a foundation for any future constitutional change.

New Zealand’s experience shows why this matters. A similar review there in 2023 recommended moving from three-year to four-year terms. The New Zealand government has since introduced legislation to make that change, subject to a referendum.

We should watch that process closely and take confidence from the growing public support among Kiwis for the idea when backed by political leadership.

While some may baulk at another referendum, the case for a vote on fixed, four-year terms is compelling for three reasons: it enjoys rare bipartisan support, promises significant economic benefits, and public backing increases with awareness.

If you put John Howard, Kim Beazley and Bob Hawke; Anthony Albanese, Peter Dutton and David Pocock; Dominic Perrottet and Annastacia Palaszczuk; Bill Shorten and Malcolm Turnbull — along with the Grattan Institute, the Business Council of Australia and the Australia Institute — into a room together, they wouldn’t agree on much. But one thing they could all agree on is that short parliamentary terms are holding the country back.

Public opinion is also shifting. Recent polling indicates a large majority of Australians support four-year terms. While it isn’t the top priority of voters, there is broad support from Australians when presented with the evidence.

None of this guarantees a successful referendum. To improve the odds, any proposal should ask a single, straightforward question and secure broad multi-party backing well in advance. Both elements were missing from the failed 1988 referendum, which bundled four-year fixed terms with a raft of other changes and was campaigned against by the opposition.

Longer terms should also apply only after the next election to avoid any perception of political self-interest. This was the approach Queensland took when it became the last mainland state to adopt four-year fixed terms in 2016.

Finally, fixed election dates should be legislated under the current three-year terms as a precursor to any referendum. The biggest obstacle to constitutional change is fear of the unknown. If voters are already accustomed to a fixed election date, enshrining it in the Constitution via a referendum would be a much easier ask.

Australia’s short parliamentary terms are a historical holdover. They were designed to align with colonial parliamentary terms that no longer exist. We must take this opportunity to fix them for good.