Albo supports shifting from a PM called election within a 3 year term to a 4 year term of fixed length.
“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.
That sounds like a mess, especially if the public service has to deal with changing governments all of the time (if there was public service reform that limits the influence of the government in power I’d be for that, but that is challenging). And whether you like it not, the incentives would be for governments to constantly be in campaign mode with shorter terms.
The ideal is that a functional government doesn’t change all the time, but a nonfunctional one can be removed before too much damage is done. Consistency isn’t beneficial if it’s consistently bad.
I can’t argue against the potential for constant campaigning.
The problem is that then governments are slaves to the populist vote, and the population will always vote for the quickest benefit to them.
There’s been quite a few projects and policies in Australia that have been short term pain for long term gain.