The latest example of Malcolm Turnbull's lack of political nous is his reaction to Bill Shorten's suggestion that we need four year terms for federal parliament.

Shorten is currently favoured to win the next election, so of course Shorten likes the idea. Much easier for him to introduce his "reforms" with a longer time frame.

And there must be something for Shorten in it, because there is no public clamour for the change, so it's not as though he's been pressured into this.

Malcolm could have responded by saying that he'd think about it, but while he could understand why Bill might want it, what is in it for the people? And he could have said he had a lot more important things on his mind, like working out how to get legislation through a senate that Bill Shorten is determined to make dysfunctional.

Perhaps he could have suggested that reforms to the Senate to stop it frustrating a popular mandate might be in order, and that a smaller Senate might be a good idea. He might have added that 8 year terms for senators would be absurd, so we'd have to look at 4 year terms for all the senators. And if Bill is so keen on a referendum, why not throw in a plebiscite for Gay Marriage at the same time.

Afterall, what could be more popular with the public, with the decline of the major party vote, than trying to give politicians even more power?

Well, Shorten is setting the agenda and Turnbull has fallen for it.

Fortunately the idea would go to a referendum, and few Australians would want to to give them more time to do even more damage than they do now in three years. The idea is preposterous.

Senators will be all for it. As it is, some Senators could get an honorary PhD for research on their own entitlements. They'd run out of foreign places for study tours wouldn't they?

What about four year terms and get rid of the Senate? Throw in a few extras in the Reps if they like.

If Mal wants to get back into government that would be the way to go.

Gay referendum? Might not impress the real alternative government, 'their' ABC. That could be a problem for Mal.

ttbn,
For what I think is the first time, I'm in complete agreement with you!

I would be against four-year terms for the reasons others here have cited. However, fixing the terms might be a good idea as it would prevent the party in power from playing politics with the election date.

(How many words starting with P can YOU fit into a sentence?)

I'm not so sure the public would reject it in a referendum, though. People here in Queensland seemed pretty keen to allow four-year terms for the state parliament, and for no apparent reason other than the fact that they couldn't be bothered dragging their arses to the polling booth every three years. This, despite three-year terms supposedly being a consolation for not having a senate.

Fixed four-year terms may offer a bit more political stability, however.

(How many words starting with P can YOU fit into a sentence?)

Plenty.