[4] The ECQ denied it had given one side more prominence, and that the pamphlets had been written and formatted by members of parliament who had voted for or against the bill to hold the referendum.

[6] Proponents of the "Yes" case said that four-year fixed terms would reduce the cost of holding elections; provide certainty to business and electors, as well as allow MPs more time for considered policy development; and would take the politics out of the election date being decided by the Premier of the day to their party's advantage.

[6] KAP and other proponents of the "No" case stated that the proposal was wrong for a unicameral parliament without an upper house, and that voters would have to wait longer to vote out a "bad" government.

They said there is no guarantee that longer terms would ensure better planning and policy development, and that it would make parliamentarians more complacent and less responsive.

[7] On 5 April 2016, the Electoral Commission declared that the referendum had passed, with final counting still under way but with the result beyond doubt.