"If you've got a three-year cycle, in practice, that often means that you really only have a shorter window of perhaps a couple of years to bring about substantial reform, by which time you're looking at the next election," he said.

Having a fixed term of parliament would remove the ability for prime ministers to call early elections, as well, which typically favour the incumbent government.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] brisk@aussie.zone 15 points 7 months ago (5 children)

"If you've got a three-year cycle, in practice, that often means that you really only have a shorter window of perhaps a couple of years to bring about substantial reform, by which time you're looking at the next election," he said.

No, you have three years to bring about substantial reform. If you decide to prioritise campaigning over reform, that's your decision and a longer term won't change that.

There was a significant push for one year terms early on, I'd much rather see that than a reduction in our democratic voice.

[–] Joshi@aussie.zone 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

As always I have serious reservations about calling representative government democracy at all, that being said I think that fixed term lengths is a greater step forward in democracy than a longer term length would be a step back. If that's the compromise I think it's worthwhile.

[–] brisk@aussie.zone 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I do agree with fixed terms, and would probably vote yes in a referendum that only offered a package deal

load more comments (3 replies)