The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: The looming Federal election raises in my mind again the question of fixed terms of Parliament. I note that this Federal election is occurring a little after 2½ years from the last Federal election, and in many ways that is rather longer than usual.
 The Hon. R.R. Roberts interjecting:
 The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Oh, shut up!
 The Hon. R.R. Roberts interjecting:
 The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I am not even being political about this: just behave yourself. We in this State have moved to a minimum three, maximum four year term, which has achieved some benefits. However, even under such a system we face the possibility of two years of Government and two years of electioneering or, to put it another way, only one non-election budget before we move into election mode. The Democrats have always had the view at State level that we should go to fixed terms, and I believe that in this State we should go to a fixed term of four years.
 In fact, I would argue further that it would be very healthy if both Federal and State Parliaments were fixed four year terms. It would mean that Governments would spend more time governing and less time thinking about the next election. They would know when the next election was to happen, there would be no point starting electioneering too early, there would be a point at which the Government would click into election mode but, outside that period, the Government would concentrate on the job of government itself.
 Not only do you have Governments trying to think when they will hold an election that will give them the best resultóand, frankly, I think that Governments should know that they are working to a fixed dated and be judged on their perform-ance at that timeóbut also you have a problem with States and Federal Governments trying to second guess each other as to when they will call their election, trying to get election campaigns over with or out of each other's way, as well as being unsure whether or not State and Federal issues will cross over, and so on. My view is that we should be looking to fixed four year terms in relation to both State and Federal Governments.
 I go even further to suggest that we might look to try to alternate State and Federal elections so that they are two years apart. I can see enormous value in knowing that this year is a State election year and that the Federal election is two years away. We should separate State and Federal issues and keep the elections apart from each other. I suppose it might even be possible to consider working into that sequence local government elections, although, unfortunately, at this stage, local government elections work on a three year cycle. I rather thinkóand many peopleó
 The Hon. A.J. Redford interjecting:
 The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I was going to say that. Many people in local government believe that three years is a heck of a commitment, particularly for people doing work on a voluntary basis. I suggest that if local government elections returned to a two year cycle they could also intervene in the odd years. We are having an argument about compulsory versus voluntary voting. However, I cannot help but think it would be of benefit if we knew that the first week in October, or whatever, was election week every year. We would know that local government elections were to be held this year, State Government elections the following year, local government elections the year after, followed by Federal Government elections the year after that. That would actuallyó
 The Hon. T.G. Roberts: You could synchronise them with school holidays.
 The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: It might actually work in with all sorts things. It would be easier to work out when to have your football finals, or vice versa. It could be possible to synchronise all those considerations. I believe that democracy would be the beneficiary of that system in a whole range of ways. Governments would spend more time governing and less time thinking about when to hold an election; State and Federal issues would not be as complicated; and State and Federal Governments would not be trying to get elections out of each other's way. All those matters, as well as elevating local government's status, would be part of the cycle. For what it is worth, I float that suggestion and welcome respons-es.
 

 
Site assisted by Intramedia Design