NSW LABOR'S "ABUSE" OF 4 YEAR PARLIAMENTARY TERMS ENOUGH TO GIVE QUEENSLANDERS THE JITTERS

Note: - an edited version of this was published in the Courier Mail on 8/12/2015.

The upside to having 4 year parliamentary terms in Queensland is, as your Editorial indicated, that it would give the ruling party or parties an extra year to plan and execute policies, which if they have any substance, more often than not are a work in progress and cant be implemented properly within a period of months.

Having said that, the most obvious downside for having Queensland fall in line with the other states and adopting them is the great potential for Queenslanders to be stuck with an incompetent, lackluster and possibly even corrupt state government for 4 years, with little or no constitutional recourse and mechanisms for the government to be forced back to the polls early if it ends up being a real lemon, or worse.

Take NSW as an example and the chaos and dysfunction which Labor dished up between the mid 90's and 2011 when the party was in power for 16 straight years. Labor nearly ruined NSW, and four year parliamentary terms were almost like rubbing salt in the wounds around about a year into Labor's last term before Barry O'Farrell's Liberals finally "liberated" the state from Labor's manic incompetence.

Four year parliamentary terms are simply too risky, other state governments in other states since the 90's besides NSW have proven as well that it's too long between pit stops if one turns out to be bad.

For Queensland, a happy medium would be if the state adopted 3 year fixed parliamentary terms, which at the very least would stop any premier from calling a costly and opportunistic snap election. Within a guaranteed 3 year timeframe, any government with substance and policies to match can still get a lot done.