Altering the constitution to institute four-year fixed terms for the House of Representatives has long had bipartisan support. 

Fixed-term parliaments have been introduced in all states and territories, some by Liberal governments, others by Labor.

The idea was supported in 1988 by then opposition leader John Howard when then Labor prime minister Bob Hawke included the proposition in four referendum questions, none of which succeeded, largely, it is thought, because of imprecise wording. 

Referendums are devilishly difficult to win; of the 44 held since federation, only eight have passed. Doing so requires a double majority – there has to be an overall national majority and a majority of states. Bipartisan support is crucial.

The most compelling reason for this fundamental electoral reform is that it would remove purely political calculations from election timing, and so increase the scope for governments to focus on developing and implementing long-term policies. 

With our federal parliaments running for an average of only about 2½ years, many budgets and policies are expedient, motivated by short-term political advantage.

Polling has shown public backing for the fixed-term change has increased. The issue has been placed on the agenda by the leaders of the two main parties. 

The argument that a four-year term would make voters wait unduly before removing an unpopular and bad government is misplaced. We have had numerous competent, extended governments that were often unpopular at stages. Further, governments that believe they are going to lose do not bring on early elections.

Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten are well aware backing for mainstream parties is at a historical low – one in three voters supports minor parties or independents – in part because of the perception that personal and tribal interest is being placed ahead of national interest. 

Just as Farrer’s Liberal member Ms Ley and Indi’s independent representative Ms McGowan did last week, it would be desirable if politicians of all persuasions were open-minded and resisted playing games with this overdue reform. This is a chance to restore some public faith in the ability of our lawmakers to collaborate and compromise for the public good.