Fixed terms A term is the amount of time between elections, so a fixed term is where there is a set amount of time between elections, so the election has to happen around the date that the fixed term expires.

Should the federal government adopt four year fixed terms?

Pro’s of fixed terms If there were to be fixed terms the government would not be able to call early elections to avoid hard decisions that may anger the public, and cause them to vote for the other party. The debating period (the time in which they try to get the peoples vote) will be a lot longer as there will be no rushed election campaigns.

Pro’s of fixed terms Reducing cost of elections – A most tangible benefit associated with the introduction of longer parliamentary terms is the associated reduction of costs involved with in running elections. Australia should not have held more than 32 elections in the last century. Instead they have held 38, amounting to a significant additional cost of between $800 million and $1 billion in today’s money.

Pro’s of fixed terms Improved policy making – The frequency of elections has major ramifications for sound government policy. Under our unfixed, 3 year terms, governments have difficulty reconciling careful and deliberate policy making. Because of the trend towards continuous campaigning, there is a tendency instead to adopt short-term expedient policies to ensure electoral success.

Pro’s of fixed terms Improved debate – Greater time between elections could arguably raise the standard of political debates. More in-depth and genuine cross party discussions on policy issues would be possible without the influence of a looming election can continuous campaigning in the third year of a term.

Pro’s of fixed terms. Increased business confidence – The private sector has long campaigned that the short federal election cycle has a negative impact on long-term business planning and confidence, and therefore the national economy.

Pro’s of fixed terms Voter dislike of frequent elections – As Australia has federal, state and territory, and local government elections there is public unease, if not irritation, at the frequency of elections. Arguably this is also linked with an increasing dislike for the highly adversarial nature of party politics.

Cons of fixed terms May detract from frequent opportunities for accountability to voters. Longer, more expensive election campaigns may result. An early election can solve a political crisis if a government loses its majority in the lower house.

Cons of fixed terms Trust in the inherent wisdom of voters is only relevant once in every four years. Members of the parliament obtain a greater security than normal. Public may endure a longer period of a government that may have lost popular support. Does not change the promotion and manipulation of candidates in the period before the election.

Cons of fixed terms Instability may be prolonged where the government is reliant on crossbenches for support. A government with a small majority facing competing demands does not have to recourse to an election to establish a clear mandate. A fixed date may prove to be inconvenient due to unforseen circumstances

Our groups opinion We believe that maximum terms are better as the pro’s of maximum terms clearly outweigh those of the fixed terms. the most beneficial feature of maximum terms is if a government does become corrupt, there can be an election held and the people can decide on which party/leader is best for them. In conclusion we do not believe the government should adopt fixed terms.