Four Year Terms could be on the cards federally
Four-year terms, increased MP numbers in Australian parliament floated by Don Farrell.
Australia could have fixed four-year parliamentary terms and an increase in the number of federal MPs under a major shake-up of the political system put on the agenda by Special Minister of State Don Farrell.
I’m all for this as it provides more stabiliity and is inline with the state and local government terms.
It would require some harmonisation with Senate terms. There are a few options eg extend from 6 year terms to 8 year terms, or just have 4 year Senate terms concurrent with House of Reps terms and flush the whole Parliament every time. The latter should make it easier for people to get elected to the Senate outside the major parties as the effect would be not unlike a double dissolution election now (quota is fractionally less than half of what it normally is).
Eight year terms for the Senate would be hot garbage and nobody in their right mind should support that. Six is already too long.
I’d be happy with 4 year terms for both houses - the increased proportionality for the Senate balances out the longer time between elections.
Part of the justification for the Senate terms being as they are today, is to be a check on a new government.
With an increasingly proportional Senate, a majority in that chamber really does translate to a majority of voters at the last election. The House… less so.
All in all, this would look like today’s Senate, in which the (Labor) government has a (left) wing majority, but does not have a majority in its own right and hence must negotiate.
Personally I would be completely against 4 year terms as I think it makes politicians far too unaccountable to the people 3 years is just long enough to implement policies and 4 years in my opinion makes the political system far too unaccountable and too much like a US style presidential system. I already think its a massive shame that Queenslanders agreed to 4 year terms when 3 year terms had worked so well for so long.
I like the idea of 4 year terms in both houses but having the elections offset from one another. ie an election every 2 years alternating between house and senate. It may be a few too many elections though.
Already ruled out by the PM. Anthony Albanese rules out referendum to create fixed four-year terms | news.com.au — Australia’s leading news site for latest headlines
Unrelated but small states getting so many senate seats compared to territories and larger states is unrepresentative currently. and expanding the house/senate would just make the issue worse
Along with legalisating it
As the equal seats per state is a key foundational part of federation I think equal senate seats will remain until or unless Australia is reshaped (losing states, gaining states, or writing an entirely new constitution.
Which is why we shouldn’t expand
As a former resident of the ACT, I could get on board with the territories having greater representation in the senate. 2 senators, both with 3 year terms (so re-elected each half senate election) is not well justified in the present era.
Whilst I did live in the ACT, I think it’s NT that gets the shortest end of the stick here, given the geographical size of the territory and proportion of electors who are first nations people.
Not suggesting it should necessarily be 6 for each territory, but highlighting that I think 2 might also be too few.
When you think about how the Senate is constitutionally meant to be about half the size of the House, the ACT is actually closest to par!
Yes Tassie, the closest in population, is wildly over represented. Meanwhile NSW which literally surrounds the ACT is wildly under represented.
If the ACT grows to 6 House seats existing law provides it will get a 3rd Senator.
That won’t happen the act won’t get to a point where it needs 6 seats
See what happens with the recommendations from the review.
Well if we expanded the Parliament to match the population growth in the last 40 years…
The urban footprint of Canberra could one day reach that point (albeit not in my lifetime probably), but that urban expansion won’t be within the borders of the ACT. They’re already having to expand into NSW through areas west of Belconnen, since most of the territory itself is national park.
The whole point of an upper house or Senate is to provide some parity of representation among states. The US Senate has 100 senators (2 per state). California has 2 and so does places like Wyoming even though there is a vast population difference. Proportional representation is the job of the lower house, not the Senate.
I do think there is a case to be made for changing how the territories are represented but fundamentally, I don’t think the basic premise of the Senate should change.
4 year terms for both houses would be good.