If anyone is able to convince Malcolm Turnbull about the stupidity of supporting four-year terms for Federal Parliament it should be West Australians.

Both our recent and early democratic history point to the folly of the idea.

Before Federation, the WA Legislative Assembly made a submission to the 1898 Constitutional Convention arguing for four-year terms, which had been enjoyed by politicians here through colonial times.

But wiser heads prevailed and it was roundly defeated without much debate. WA then fell into line with the rest of the States and the new Federal Parliament.

So this new idea is actually rushing headlong into the past.

The recent experience is no more encouraging.

WA was the last State to change from three-year terms in 1987, following Tasmania (1972), NSW (1981), Victoria (1984) and South Australia (1985). Only the ACT and Queensland don’t have four-year terms.

Labor premier Brian Burke convinced the Liberals to support adding a year to government terms and since then both sides of politics have been beneficiaries of the extra time in power.

So being the last in, memories should be a little fresher about the perceived benefits.

Can anyone put their hand on their heart and say WA has had better government as a result?

I’ll admit that longer terms intuitively seem attractive for all the reasons Burke advanced at the time.

But short-term thinking and actions have increased during this period and there is little sign of the backbone for change that the extended time was meant to provide as politicians quail at the sniff of an opinion poll from day one in government.

The 24/7 news cycle makes a four-year term seem an eternity as every blemish becomes amplified.

And what we have seen is that governments simply waste the potential benefit of the extra middle year.

This becomes particularly evident when a government wins a second term.

In WA, they have been shockers and the four years has dragged interminably until the voters get a chance to bring down the axe.

Four-year terms is simply another of those many issues in which the political parties conspire among themselves to arrange matters in their own interests.

When pollies meet across the aisles on such things it’s time for the public to be alarmed.

Did we learn nothing from their connivance on election funding for which there has never been a proper cost-benefit analysis?

These things usually only benefit the politicians. No one looks after the public interest in politics these days. The parties are too strong and the people too weak and disengaged.

Political scientists I consulted this week were unable to point me to any research proving four-year terms brought about better government.

Extending parliamentary terms goes contrary to the prevailing public view that the major political parties no longer listen or respond to what people want. Why would we reward them with longer in office?

It is this deep vein of discontent that politicians such as Pauline Hanson, Clive Palmer, Jacqui Lambie, Derryn Hinch, Nick Xenophon and assorted other carpetbaggers mine to cobble together the handfuls of votes they need under our distorted electoral system to get a seat in Parliament.

But they rarely achieve anything worthwhile and so the cycle of public discontent continues.

Four-year terms in the Federal Parliament will do nothing to fix that. Nothing. It will just give them longer on the public payroll.

There are two electoral reform debates we should be having about the Federal malaise rather than wasting a minute on longer terms.

The first is the adoption of fixed terms. It is a simple matter of fairness, taking away from government the ability to abuse their power to call a poll when its suits them. WA already has this measure.

That move would end the argument that the average Federal term is only 21/2 years because of politically inspired early elections, which is being perversely used to advance four-year terms.

And the second, much more important debate, is about getting rid of the Senate, which has well and truly outlived its usefulness.

We now have the situation that the most damaging element in Australian democracy — the one thing that stops governments doing the work the people elect them to do — is the Senate.

This is not a flash in the pan since the latest group of carpetbaggers arrived.

It’s been going on since the 70s and in recent years has become a serious economic drag on the nation.

The Senate has completely lost its function as a States’ house.

It is now a partisan house dominated by party politics that couldn’t give a fig for the States that elect its members.

It is a sick joke that Tasmania returns as many senators as New South Wales, the biggest electoral malapportionment in Australian political history.

The Senate’s only other raison d’etre — the review function — can be carried out adequately by Lower House committees and with the constitutional checks and balances provided by the Governor-General and the High Court. A strengthened Council of Australian Governments could provide the States with a better voice in Canberra than the modern Senate.

A version of this argument should have been Turnbull’s response when Labor leader Bill Shorten put up the four-year terms balloon last Sunday — if he responded at all.

Once again, Turnbull showed his political weaknesses.

Instead of turning the issue back on Shorten, showing him to be someone not only craving power, but hungry for more of it over a longer period, Turnbull gave him oxygen.

Rather than immediately raising the killer issue of eight-year Senate terms — which should scare the pants off any thinking Australian — Turnbull said “let’s talk” to a man who only wants to tell lies about him and his Government.

Australians should be very wary of any politician seeking more power.

Shorten has again exposed his naked ambition and in doing so once again exposed Turnbull’s inadequacies in confronting it.