Reading a lot of negative opinions on pollies and the parties here, and sharing them, I wonder....
Perhaps a way to avoid useless time-servers and party-hacks, and the "favours" system, corruption etc that infests our Parliaments, might be to make it mandatory that pollies can only serve two terms, and at least a 5-10 year gap before they can stand again.
This would seem likely to avoid what happened with the Democrats, and is now happening with the Greens, they become corrupted by the system, lose their connection to reality, and addicted to power and "deals".
It would also possibly force the party system to find better people, and perhaps even make voters think a little more, no bad thing.

Dear Max,

The ruling Party Cabinet should be replaced every
2 terms - no matter what the Party governing.

Replacing all politicians may be detrimental when
some politicians who can contribute in the interests
of the Nation may be lost. Therefore - similar to the
system in the US - the Prime Minister (President) -
and that's where we're looking towards a Republic,
should not serve more than 2 terms. (Be it three years
or four years a term).

No matter what the Party politics, each Prime Minister
elected on Party preferred basis will select his/her
own Cabinet for the duration of the term in office.
That way, it will eliminate entrenched politics, as
we have experienced to date.

It has always been the same, we say how unhappy we are with those who rule us but do we truely understand them?
I doubt it.
Daily hourly I hear people who could not name two ministers complain about both government and opersition.
And we must not forget, ever, much of the commplaints are generated in the media.
And much of that is very nearly lies.
I see no gain in stopping people serving more than 2 terms, in every party the best are often the longest serving.
And right now remain convinced Rudd will win the upcoming election.
Note the screaming and open preparations it is going to come soon.
After it, after this current car dealership thing has run its course if we look back we will see much of the anti politician thing is junk .
I would think actions not length of service is the yard stick, but to sack one just for change is silly.

Max
While I agree with you about parliament I disagree with your diagnosis about the demise of the Dems.

As I've said before the Dems shot themselves in the foot because of a flaw in their creation.
They stated and were eminently successful being what Chip stated 'Keeping the Bs honest.'. The public want(ed) a 3rd force to do exactly that.
But the public were reluctant to have another 'big' player.

FYI As a member of the Australia Party I was opposed to the amalgamation/takeover with/by the Dems because I could see the typecasting as an inevitable consequence.

The Dems factionalized some wanting to remain the balance others wanted to become a majority in their own right.
IMHO Careful examination of Aust demographics made the latter unlikely.
Particularly with their *perceived* amateur, idealistic policies. In that they didn't stroke the status quo power bases.They were seen as a threat rather than the solution by these same entrenched powers.
The green will sadly go the same way only more so in that they have deliberately made themselves opposed to big pollution etc.

Notwithstanding I think there should be an old time Dems but one more aware of the political reality in Aus.
It will be easier to change the Parliament than the power bases. Harder to argue against improvements to the constitution than change people's emotions

Dear Belly,

A shorter term would force politicians to put
their goals/aims into practice, instead of
playing politics and delaying outcomes
until the next election, as we've all noticed
with John Howard's term in office - when people
simply got fed up waiting for him to do something
for essential human services like health and
education - which withered on the vine.

A 2 term - time in office - as in the US -
gives the Leader and his Cabinet the first term
to formulate the policies, and the second term
to enact them. So, if they want to go down in history
as having achieved something - they are forced to
move quickly and rationally - and not delay and
procrastinate. As George W.'s record shows - where
he seriously messed up and everyone breathed a
sigh of relief when he left.

The other choice that we have is a dictatorship -
which is the direction Howard was heading.

And Belly, don't forget that a 2 term time could
range from 6 to 8 years (8 years is what Labor is
currently suggesting). And the elected Government
should serve the full 2 terms when elected.
Which is fair enough, in my view at least.

the current system isnt serving the common people[let alone the common weal]little wonder we dropped the common-wealth from our vocabulary[and thus our thinking[and theirs]

its the same how peace officers became policers[noew instead of keeping the peace they become policers of the people under the auspiciouis of suspect acts and moralistic unconstitutional law making

the joke is we are over governed[we need less polititions changing the rules..[peter beaty changed over 2000 laws in the few short years the lawyer ran the sunshine state..[he thought to change into the smart @rse state]..we need more sepperation of powers..[how is it lkawyers are allowed to make laws?

peter beatup even chanmged the qld constitution into an act[act 70 of 2002]...not that the dumbed down voters even know or caRE WHAT THAT MEANS...yeah we need to change the syatem[whats with party loyaly[putting the party before the people should legally be treason

it is worth notiung that we have such a thing as odious debt[like govt creating extra debt[not serving the people makes the debt odious[irrecoverable in court,..because the very act creating the debt was of ill intent...

we should also note that odious creation of law..[should mean the same thing[..ie the drug law..[that enriches lawyers,..while criminalising the people..[one percent each year of which the lawyers convince 20 out of 21 to plead guilty at first court appearance

[for which the lawyers get 250 cash for each guilty plea,via legal aid[in qld the drug law raised 65 million in 1999 alone..[while criminalising 34,000[qld alone][mainly for cannabis[that killed no one ever..[compared to booze that kills 4000..each year[directly]12,000 indirectly]