Debate on Extending Federal Voting Cycle to 4 Years Reopens

Experts told the inquiry that fixed four-year federal terms could save $60 billion over 20 years by improving productivity and policy focus.

The senate chamber at Parliament House in Canberra, Australia on Feb. 6, 2023. Martin Ollman/Getty Images

Australia’s electoral system is again under review, with a Senate inquiry examining whether longer parliamentary terms or a larger Parliament could deliver a more stable, productive, and representative democracy.

Experts from across the political and academic spectrum discussed the efficiency, accountability, and practicality of the idea during a Senate Committee on Nov. 7.

Rethinking the Three-Year Cycle

Australia’s federal election cycle, among the shortest in the developed world, came under scrutiny, with several witnesses arguing that the constant churn of campaigning and policymaking was undermining long-term governance.

Marty Grey, head of the advocacy group Four Year Term, said Australia’s three-year federal cycle “is an outlier,” misaligned with the four-year terms used by all states and territories.

“This all has a really significant but often hidden cost on our economy,” he told the committee.

He cited analysis showing that shifting to fixed four-year terms could save around $60 billion over 20 years.

Grey said governments have only a brief window to focus on legislating before the next campaign begins.

“Under a fixed four-year term, you actually double the amount of time the government is working,” he said.

He said the second major benefit—worth about $40 billion—would come from a more productive public service and private sector.

“The public service has to pause a lot of big investments and decisions because it doesn’t know when the election is going to be, or who’s going to win,” he said.

Queensland became the national test case in March 2016, when voters narrowly approved fixed four-year terms with just under 53 percent voting “Yes.” Since then, the state has voted every four years in late October.

Earlier this year, before the May elections, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese also endorsed the change, calling three-year terms “too short.”

He said, “Our view, our long-term policy, and we’ve put it to the Australian people, is for four-year terms, but I don’t anticipate that happening any time soon—and I think that’s unfortunate.”

Accountability and the Senate

While most agreed with the idea, they weren’t sure about its implications, particularly on the Senate term.

Electoral analyst Kevin Bonham argued that fixed four-year cycles could weaken accountability and flexibility during political instability.

“I’m not convinced that there’s a workable four-year terms model,” Bonham said. “I see the disadvantages of elections every three years, but I can’t find a convincing solution.”

He said that under some proposals, senators could serve eight-year terms, effectively shielding them from voter scrutiny.

“A senator elected for eight years is effectively not accountable. Someone defects a few months into an eight-year term, and the country’s stuck with them with no mandate,” he said.

Grey acknowledged the complications but said reform should still proceed in stages. He suggested two options: maintaining half-Senate elections with eight-year terms or moving to full-Senate elections every four years, each with trade-offs.

“Eight years is a long time to not be held accountable,” he said.

Expanding Representation

Debate also shifted to the question of whether Australia’s Parliament is now too small for a country of 27 million.

Political analyst Ben Raue, founder of The Tally Room, said it had been more than 40 years since the last expansion and that the workload and population growth now justified an increase.

“Having a larger Parliament means there’s less of a gap between you and your local MP,” he said. “It would reduce the burden on MPs, increase diversity, and allow backbenchers more independence to represent their communities.”

According to the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), Australia currently has 150 federal electorates, each representing an average of 120,892 voters.

Every state must have at least five members, but boundaries are regularly redrawn to keep representation fair.

After its 2023 redistribution, the AEC determined Western Australia would gain a seat, while New South Wales and Victoria would each lose one, returning the total to 150.

Bonham warned that expansion would activate the nexus provision, which ties the size of the House to that of the Senate.

“There’s no prospect of getting the nexus repealed by referendum,” he said, urging caution to avoid distorting representation between states and territories.

Global Comparisons and New Zealand Debate

As Australia re-examines its system, New Zealand is also preparing to vote on moving to four-year fixed terms. A national referendum will be held alongside either the 2026 or 2029 election, with changes to take effect from October 2031 if approved.

Most comparable democracies already operate on longer cycles. The United States elects its president every four years, while the UK votes roughly every five.

Canada and Germany also run on four-year federal terms, as do all Australian states and territories.

Supporters say aligning with these systems would bring stability and efficiency. Critics argue the shorter three-year cycle keeps governments more accountable and voters more empowered to correct course—a core feature of Australia’s democratic rhythm.

AI and Election Misinformation

Beyond term lengths and representation, the inquiry heard growing alarm about artificial intelligence and its role in spreading election misinformation.

Bonham said the level of falsehoods since the 2022 election “has been several times higher,” fuelled by AI-generated content.

“I’m constantly noticing AI programmes available online making false claims about Australian elections,” he said, citing one bot on X that repeatedly misrepresented how preferences are counted.

“It does concern me that we have people treating these AI programmes as oracles, when they are actually just language engines and are unreliable,” he added.

“These programmes are basically breaching the electoral acts by making statements that can mislead an elector.”

The AEC confirmed the scale of the challenge. During the 2025 campaign, it reviewed 7,400 pieces of content—including 2,600 social-media posts and 18 podcasts—and found 1,677 breaches of authorisation rules.

AEC Commissioner Jeff Pope told the inquiry the current laws, written in 2018, were no longer adequate.

“We’re dealing with an entirely new information ecosystem,” he said, calling for new powers to remove misleading content, require disclosure of AI-generated or deepfake material, and extend advertising rules to social-media influencers.