Fewer elections and cost savings are balanced against less democracy and voter control in the official Yes and No arguments released by the Electoral Commission of Queensland (ECQ).

Yes case: Fixed four-year terms Fixed day for election every four years

Fixed day for election every four years Policy development would be less driven by short-term political considerations

Policy development would be less driven by short-term political considerations Reduce the cost of elections

Reduce the cost of elections Takes the politics out of elections being called

Takes the politics out of elections being called More certainty for businesses, encourage jobs and investment

More certainty for businesses, encourage jobs and investment Easier for Regional and North Queensland: election not in wet season

Easier for Regional and North Queensland: election not in wet season LNP, the ALP and the Independents support fixed four-year terms

The referendum for fixed four-year terms for the Queensland Legislative Assembly is set for March 19.

No case: Fixed four-year terms Less democracy and voter control

Less democracy and voter control Wrong for a state without an Upper House

Wrong for a state without an Upper House Less responsive and more complacent governments and politicians

Less responsive and more complacent governments and politicians No guarantee there will be better planning and policy

No guarantee there will be better planning and policy Increased social cost to Queenslanders

Increased social cost to Queenslanders Puts politicians job security ahead of voters' rights

Puts politicians job security ahead of voters' rights Will have to wait longer to vote-out a bad government

The Yes and No statement of arguments is included in a mail out of information to voters enrolled for the Queensland local government elections, which will take place the same day.

The official Yes case statement makes the point that four-yearly elections would be on a fixed date, the last Saturday in October.

This would be irrespective of the government of the day and would reduce the cost of elections, allowing for better policy development by governments.

The official No case statement counters, saying Queenslanders would have to wait longer to vote out bad governments.

It said it was wrong to have four-year terms in a state without an upper house to review laws and there would be guarantee there would be better planning and policy.

Advocates for both sides of the referendum canvassed issues on 612 ABC Brisbane on Friday.

Shadow Attorney-General Ian Walker supports the Yes case and cited it as a rare example of something that had the support of both major parties.

"After a period of consultation around Queensland — the Parliamentary committee went around Queensland getting Queenslanders' views — the LNP, the ALP and the Independents in the Queensland Parliament all agreed to put to the people of Queensland the decision as to whether or not to move to fixed four-year terms," Mr Walker said.

"That would mean an election on the last Saturday in October — that's been picked to keep it away from local government elections, to keep it away from school holidays.

"The committee for the Yes case comprises people like the Chamber of Commerce, who point out the certainty that it gives business in its planning and not being sideswiped by a premier who goes to an election suddenly.

Loading...

"The trade union movement are on our yes case."

Longer terms are opposed by Katter's Australian Party and the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties (QCCL).

QCCL president Michael Cope said the Council opposed four-year terms and regarded them as having the potential to erode democracy.

"Our position is that we don't have a view of whether they should be fixed or not; that's not a civil liberties issue," Mr Cope said.

"But we do oppose four-year terms until we overcome what we see as the democracy deficit in this state.

"We have a state with a history or authoritarianism, no upper house, no human rights act.

"One of the few checks on government power in this state is the right to vote and we don't see that it should be watered down in the current circumstances."

Loading...

Loading...