In our words: fixed terms good, four years bad

Pollies investigating ways to make it harder to give them the boot.

Fixed four-year terms on the cards

There is not a lot the Coalition and the ALP agree on, but the prospect of greater job security does seem to have them energised this week.

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten raised the prospect of introducing fixed, four-year electoral terms on Sunday, and it did not take long for Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to reach out to discuss the idea.

Mr Shorten said the current system was stifling reform and suggested governments would be bolder and more daring if they were not constantly thinking about the next election.

It isn’t the first time this idea has been floated. Earlier this year, Liberal MP David Coleman introduced a draft Bill for four-year terms, arguing it would make it easier for governments to implement long-term policies.

Mr Shorten and Mr Turnbull seem to forget that politicians have been able to pass unpopular long-term legislation under the current three-year election cycle without too much trouble.

John Howard managed to introduce the vastly unpopular GST legislation in 2000 and was re-elected one year later and again in 2004.

Bob Hawke’s Labor Government was able to deregulate Australia’s financial system, float the dollar, and introduce the first Medicare levy – all moves that were unpopular, but none of which managed to change the Silver Budgie’s electoral popularity.

The problem now is that politicians from the major parties are on the nose with the electorate and support is increasingly drifting away to non-traditional parties - the Greens on the left and One Nation on the right.

The electorate would welcome a politician with vision in the Hawke, Keating or Howard mould, willing to put a long-term plan to the country and explain its merits. Unfortunately, no leader from either party recently has been able to rely on the electorate to back a vision.

The issue of fixed terms, separate from an increase in the length of the terms, is definitely one worth considering.

According to The Australia Institute (TAI), sine 1910 the average length of government has only been two-and-a-half years.

TAI’s Ben Oquist told ABC News Breakfast that the problem isn’t that we don’t have four-year terms, it is that we don’t have three-year terms.

“By fixing it at three years, we get ourselves a longer term — it'd be good for democracy, it would stop [the] prime minister being able to pick and choose election dates and manipulate election timing, it would be better for governing and we wouldn't waste so much about when an election's going to be," Mr Oquist said.

The good news is that changing to a four-year electoral cycle would require a referendum, something that may prove hugely unpopular with a cynical electorate. Fixing an election date every three years, however, would not require a referendum.

What do you think? Would you support fixed, four-year terms for our politicians? Would you vote for it in a referendum?

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    MICK
    25th Jul 2017
    10:46am
    There's an argument both ways with the important criteria being a PROVEN bad government like the current one.
    Perhaps an online system for ending the term of such a government could be devised whereby people can use an online voting format to trigger an early election after 2 years into any term. When say 60% of the voting public want a term to end then it happens. That would put pressure ont crooked governments to not be as crooked....although the current one would find that nigh well impossible.
    Sen.Cit.90
    25th Jul 2017
    11:32am
    Copied from 'Waiting to retire' (below).
    Then again, a referendum may get up IF they added a recall proposition to go with fixed 4-year terms.

    In some places (California, et al), there is a mechanism for recalling a representative (including governors I think), if the electorate is not satisfied with their elected representative.

    So if a candidate and/or party propose a policy and fail to honour that commitment to the policy (policies) we elect them on, then we have a right to recall them. If a recall motion is proposed by say 20% of my electorate, then the electoral commission has to canvas everyone in my electorate on that proposition. If half or more say recall our elected representative is sacked.

    I'D VOTE FOR THAT.
    Waiting to retire at 70
    25th Jul 2017
    11:05am
    A referendum would never get up, so let's not waste our time discussing it. However, it is worth discussing one of the concerns politicians, particularly Senators, have around 4 year fixed terms in the House of Reps. And that is for a Senator, in a four year fixed electoral cycle, who have to serve two terms to be eligible for a parliamentary pension, would need to work for 16 years before being entitled to a pension, as their normal 6 year term would need to go to 8 years to remain double the term of house of rep members.

    We all know the generosity of politicians when it comes to spending our taxes on themselves (just look at their travel rorts). So in the interests of 'equity' I'd propose that the parliamentary pension scheme be alter to follow the same rules that apply to the rest of us.

    For instance,

    1. My employer only has to pay 9.5% of my salary as compulsory superannuation ... we, as their employers, pay 18% of their salary into each politician's pension.

    2. Our superannuation guarantee was frozen by smokin' Joe in 2014 at 9.5% (it was originally planned last century to progress over time to 15%). Scumbo, I mean, ScoMo has extended that to fiscal 2022/23 or is it 2023/24 (??).

    3. Politicians, whenever they leave parliament, even if they go to other full time employment, can draw up to 50% of their parliamentary pensions. Take smokin' Joe who's our 'court jester' to the court of King Trump in Washington, receives a minimum wage of $330,000 (not including 'baby sitting fees') and can draw up to (approx.) $151,000 of parliamentary pension as well. And he's 51 years old. Equitable?

    Why don't Bill and Ben, I mean Big Mal, spend their time discussing matters such as these? No, no ... it's rhetorical!
    Waiting to retire at 70
    25th Jul 2017
    11:10am
    Then again, a referendum may get up IF they added a recall proposition to go with fixed 4 year terms.

    In some places (California, et al), there is a mechanism for recalling a representative (including governors I think), if the electorate is not satisfied with their elected representative.

    So if a candidate and/or party propose a policy and fail to honour that commitment to the policy (policies) we elect them on, then we have a right to recall them. If a recall motion is proposed by say 20% of my electorate, then the electoral commission has to canvas everyone in my electorate on that proposition. If half or more say recall our elected representative is sacked.

    I'D VOTE FOR THAT.
    Anonymous
    26th Jul 2017
    1:10am
    Agree, Waiting to retire. Great idea!
    GeorgeM
    27th Jul 2017
    1:09pm
    Waiting to retire, agree with your comments, except I believe 3 years Fixed is ample time to deliver results. Especially, the need to Recall poor performers or those who break promises.

    Also, while this doesn't apply to Joe (the failed Tresurer, now sitting in a plum undeserved post which he wasn't qualified for, and who is entitled to the previous far more generous scheme), the parliamentary pensions even currently allow up to 75% (not 50%) of Salary if they get to 18 years in parliament. See link below:

    http://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/parliamentary_departments/parliamentary_library/pubs/bn/1011/superannuationbenefits
    dougie
    25th Jul 2017
    11:06am
    The proposal for four years will not release the government of the day from the struggle to pass legislation through an unfriendly Senate. It will just prolong the agony another year. The 3 year Government has served us well and should continue with the proviso that it is a fixed term and can only be adjusted with a petition to the Governor General from the electorate carrying a set number of signatures from each State or Territory.
    If the period is to be extended to 4 years the State, Territory and Federal elections should be held on the one day. Think of the cost saving to the community and the fact that our eardrums would not be assailed by meaningless ads - false promises and baby kissing for the intervening period.
    motaleon
    25th Jul 2017
    6:18pm
    With you all the way. Labor can do more than enough damage in 3 without giving them 4
    Anonymous
    26th Jul 2017
    1:11am
    LNP has done way more than enough damage in two years!
    niemakawa
    26th Jul 2017
    1:18am
    People should realise by now that there is no funademental difference among the main Political parties in this Country. They are all Globalist in outlook and the welfare of the Australian people comes second best, if at all. They have over the past 30 years or more sold us out. Nothing will ever change whether it be Lib or Lab at the helm.
    Nerk
    25th Jul 2017
    11:13am
    Its all about money, they won't change the 6 yrs to 8.

    25th Jul 2017
    11:18am
    with so. many pressing issues for the federal politicians to focus on this matter gets raised.
    I would not want to have had 4 years of McMahon, Whitlam, Rudd or Gillard. However Menzies, Fraser, Hawke, Keating and Howard would all have been OK. Not sue where to place Turnbull - a dud but not as bad as McMahon et al. Abbott can't make mind up - not as bad as McMahon et al but not as good as Menzies et al. I also place Gorton in the in between list.
    when it all said and done its a referendum decision and majority fail and this would be one of them so perhaps its a moot point.
    Right now Nation Security and border security seemed to be in a good place now.
    Therefore second priority must be debt and deficit - which is bad.
    I might have to reassess Turnbull as I just read a finance article saying that spending in past 2 years has only gone up by more twice before since WW2 - once under Whitlam and then again under SWAN during height of GFC.
    John from Perth
    25th Jul 2017
    11:36am
    How can you tell when a Politician is lying?
    You can see their lips moving.
    TREBOR
    25th Jul 2017
    11:40am
    Nonsense - governments would be simply sending four years angling to get the next election in the bag... three-odd years is enough for any bad government (is there any other kind) to do often fearful damage... kind of like a blind-folded elephant with a limp lost in a china shop...

    Reduce salaries and conditions so as to attract people with a genuine interest in stewardship of the nation on behalf of its people - over-fat monkeys don't do anything but sit around and create guano...
    Anonymous
    27th Jul 2017
    4:47am
    Yes Trebor. Reduce salaries. Let's get some new blood in there. And change the laws to demand honesty and integrity. Implement penalties for electoral FRAUD (promises they have no intention of keeping).
    Dolly
    25th Jul 2017
    11:49am
    If a government is doing a good job, then after 3 years like at present they will have no fear of not being re-elected. 4 years is to long, they could really stuff things up.
    Anonymous
    29th Jul 2017
    5:37am
    They've really stuffed things up, and it didn't take anywhere near 3 years. God help us all if they were given 4 years to work their evil!
    Old Geezer
    25th Jul 2017
    11:56am
    Fixed four years terms is the way to go. The current system is just stupid!
    niemakawa
    25th Jul 2017
    4:11pm
    Mad as hell, to repeat my comment on another topic (NBN) >
    All politicians should be hooked-up to a lie dectector everytime they open their mouth.
    TREBOR
    25th Jul 2017
    6:20pm
    You'd overload the machine....
    Old Geezer
    25th Jul 2017
    6:23pm
    They also need to get rid of that Senate as well. It is such a big waste of money and does nothing but hinder those in government.
    MICK
    25th Jul 2017
    8:16pm
    Of course your team wants to get rid of the senate comrade Geezer. That's what a dictatorship does.
    The fact is that politicians of all persuasion are driven by one overriding principle sic): THEM! You only need to look at the council amalgamations in NSW which now look like they have hit an iceberg to understand what makes the bastards tick.
    Anonymous
    26th Jul 2017
    1:18am
    The Senate is there to protect the people against poor legislation passed by a self-interested majority in the House, and to remove it would be to destroy all the minimal safeguards we have. A very STUPID idea, but one of course the self-interested egomaniacs in the House would support. Anything to be allowed to do as they please without accountability!

    As for fixed four-year terms.... if politicians did the job they were elected to do responsibly, they wouldn't need to have this discussion at all because they would keep getting re-elected regardless, as happened for long periods in Australia's history.
    Retired Knowall
    26th Jul 2017
    7:44am
    "The Senate is there to protect the people against poor legislation passed by a self-interested majority in the House, and to remove it would be to destroy all the minimal safeguards we have."
    Seems to working very well so far.....so why all the belly aching?
    Anonymous
    27th Jul 2017
    4:50am
    Sadly, Retired Knowall, it's not working as well as it should, and there are further reforms needed. One reform we need badly is that party members should vote according to their conscience, NOT on party lines. As in Britain, politicians should be free to cross the floor whenever they see fit. Our system is far from ideal, but removing the Senate would make it ten thousand times worse. It would become almost a dictatorship, and given the kind of people in power at present, that's terrifying.
    LiveItUp
    27th Jul 2017
    9:08am
    Yes I like to see a 4 year fixed term and no senate too. Senate is just not doing it's job and not allowing the government to govern and make tbis country prosper as it should.
    Retired Knowall
    27th Jul 2017
    7:10pm
    And the British Parliament is working brilliantly.
    niemakawa
    27th Jul 2017
    7:14pm
    Retired Knowall the BP, as does the AP, has no interest in its own citizens. Globalism at its finest.
    Tom Tank
    25th Jul 2017
    12:07pm
    A fixed term would be good idea but I am not sure about the 4 years although it is a valid argument that the 3 years is too short.
    If it went to 4 years then perhaps the Senate should also only have 4 years so that the complete Senate is up for re-election.
    I guess a lot of the problem is the abysmal level of leadership we have been subjected to over recent years. There is far too much playing politics between the parties and we are the ones suffering because of that.
    TREBOR
    25th Jul 2017
    6:20pm
    Dolly got it right - good government has no need to fear the next election... any government that works towards the next election only has not the balls to be in government....
    Anonymous
    27th Jul 2017
    4:51am
    Good government doesn't need long terms or fixed terms. Good politicians get re-elected. It's that simple!
    Retired Knowall
    27th Jul 2017
    7:16pm
    "Good government doesn't need long terms or fixed terms. Good politicians get re-elected. It's that simple!"
    If it's that simple, how do explain the current mob getting re-elected?
    Anonymous
    28th Jul 2017
    3:22am
    A bad system, RK, that offers no viable alternative to the ''current mob''. We simply don't have any valid choices given the appalling system we currently suffer under. And creating 4 year terms will only make it much, much worse. We need a complete restructure of the entire system of government so that the people are empowered and the politicians are compelled to REPRESENT their constituents and work for the national good - OR BE EXPELLED IMMEDIATELY by the people they betray.
    Travellersjoy
    25th Jul 2017
    12:09pm
    The House of Representatives governs Australia, NOT A POLITICAL PARTY.

    If a party cannot command a majority on the floor of the House, it cannot govern and must fall.

    The GG must then invite the opposition to form a government, and if it also cannot command a majority on the floor of the House, an election must be called to ensure citizens decide.

    Of course political parties want control of the executive, and see themselves as the most important things in politics, but they are just a means to discover and organise the ideas that have most support in the elected House of Representatives.

    Every attempt to remove accountability further away from voters should be vigorously resisted. Democracy is NOT just voting for a party that chooses candidates narrowly and often corruptly.

    Every Member of Parliament is elected to represent a WHOLE ELECTORATE, not just people in their own party, ethnic group, religion or business group.

    The attempted destruction of democratic accountability is never ending. Resistance is a permanent necessity. I, for one, am tired of party politics trying to rig the whole democratic structure of government to give them more power at times when they least deserve it because they cannot pass legislation through the House of Representatives.

    There are plenty of demagogue paradises from US to Africa, and China. We don't need them.
    invisible sock
    25th Jul 2017
    12:27pm
    Hasn't NSW got 4 year terms?
    And, didn't this prove to be far too long, when a previous Government, not too long ago, became riven with disunity?
    I bet Theresa May & Malcolm Turnbull NOW wish they had waited, the full length of their terms, before calling snap elections that only made their problems considerably more complicated.
    Three year fixed terms would appear to be the best option in my opinion.
    Old Geezer
    25th Jul 2017
    12:33pm
    Yes NSW has fixed 4 year terms and it's an awesome idea.
    Rae
    25th Jul 2017
    1:22pm
    OG Mr Baird didn't even need the 4 years to sell all he wanted did he? Very efficient sale of other people's assets. And rewarded by the very bank that got the huge fees and charges. If he wasn't such a nice guy it would be suspicious.
    Old Geezer
    25th Jul 2017
    1:29pm
    I didn't like Baird at all and lobbied endlessly against the sale of the electricity poles and wires leading up the last election. As I predicted the price of electricity has skyrocketed since.

    Talking of electricity pricing I have had to renew my contract and I just can't believe how those electricity retailers hood wink people. It's a real mine field and you need to look beyond the discounts and FITs offered. One had good discounts etc and pricing over 30% above it's competitors. This deal is being promoted heavily to the over 50s at the moment. I'm absolutely disgusted that they should be doing this.
    Theo1943
    25th Jul 2017
    2:39pm
    WA also has 4 year fixed term. It works well. The Premier does't spend all his time and energy trying to make the polls look better so that he can call an early election.
    MICK
    25th Jul 2017
    8:18pm
    Agreed Geezer. But I will have the last laugh when I go off grid. Only a few years away now. They can keep their poles and wires after that.
    Anonymous
    27th Jul 2017
    4:53am
    Agreed Mick, but I fear they may do as has been done in some US stated- mandate that you have to be connected to the grid if it's available to your residence. My question then would be ''What if I just refuse to pay my bill? The penalty has always been DISCONNECTION, and that would suit me perfectly!
    4b2
    25th Jul 2017
    12:32pm
    We need total Political reform, not just the terms of government. Why not introduce compulsory and secert voting within both houses, after all the government has forced both of these instruments on the voters and and also in many of the other voting areas such as Unions.

    One rule for all! I also agree we should have a mechinism to remove sub par politions, but then who would be in the house?
    MICK
    25th Jul 2017
    8:19pm
    You have hit the nail on the head 4b2. Of course you need to remember the old saying 'do as I say, not as I do'. That is a problem with absolute power and no accountability.
    KSS
    25th Jul 2017
    12:59pm
    While we're at it, get rid of the stupid 'preference deals' where someone you have never heard of, let alone voted for, gets elected purely on the secret deals they have done to get votes. First past the post in every seat should be the way to go. Then stop worrying about the next election and get on with the job they were elected to do. Whether that is three or four years is of little consequence, a fixed term will stop the electioneering from day 2 (day 1 taken up with much back slapping and self congratulation to do anything else).
    Theo1943
    25th Jul 2017
    2:42pm
    KSS, it is entirely up to you where your preferences go. there are no preference deals if you just use your pencil to fill in all the boxes. It's what I've always done.
    KSS
    25th Jul 2017
    3:31pm
    Yes Theo1943 but most don't do that especially when faced with a vote sheet the size of a double bed! And honestly if every vote actually did do it, it would take all weekend for the election to actually happen because each individual would take much longer to complete the full paper. If not then their vote won't count at all.

    Preferences are a waste of time. A simple first past the post should suffice as it does in many other places.
    niemakawa
    25th Jul 2017
    3:36pm
    There should be a valid option on the ballot paper to only vote for your candidate, without having to complete the entire form by marking preferences. Choices.
    MICK
    25th Jul 2017
    8:21pm
    I thought there was niemakawa. You used to have to fill out the whole tablecloth but my understanding is that this is no longer the case.
    niemakawa
    25th Jul 2017
    9:20pm
    Maybe I am wrong but you have to vote above or below the line completing all boxes. Presumably if you do not then your vote will not be counted. What if I only want to mark 0-5 preferencs aboe, or 0-11below It seems this will produce an invalidated vote.

    Senate ballot papers

    The order of the party columns on the ballot paper for each state and territory is determined by a random draw held immediately after the declaration of nominations.

    Some columns on the Senate ballot paper will feature a party logo but some will likely not. This is dependent on each party officially registering a logo with the AEC.

    Senate ballot papers are white in colour.

    How to complete the ballot paper

    On the white Senate ballot paper, you need to either:

    number at least six boxes above the line for the parties or groups of your choice, or
    number at least 12 boxes below the line for individual candidates of your choice.
    Above the line
    If you vote above the line, you need to number at least six boxes from 1 to 6.

    Place a 1 in the box above the party or group that is your first choice, the number 2 in the box above the party or group that is your second choice and so on until you have numbered at least six boxes above the line. You can continue to place numbers in the order of your choice in as many boxes above the line as you like.

    Your preferences will first be distributed to the candidates in the party or group of your first choice, then to candidates in the party or group of your second choice and so on, until all your preferences have been distributed.
    Rae
    25th Jul 2017
    1:17pm
    I'm beginning to believe we should have a fixed three year term with all politicians being selected in a lottery of all suitable candidates within a community. Like a giant jury duty sort of thing. Serve your three years with suitable pay but only the same super as your other life job was paying. Let dedicated and experienced public servants advise and party ideology be destroyed for once and all. Serving the Nation shouldn't be about personal wealth creation or power plays.
    MICK
    25th Jul 2017
    8:22pm
    Three years would be good if campaigning was also limited to three weeks as well as a finite (allowable) budget.
    Charlie
    25th Jul 2017
    2:05pm
    A waste of everyone's time discussing it. If the politicians are believable they will get two three year terms.
    Are they telling us they have done so well, the public don't need to review their performance for an extra year.
    Knight Templar
    25th Jul 2017
    2:34pm
    There is total public disenchantment with Labor and the Coalition. Both parties have failed miserably in delivering competent and sound government. The reality is that politicians are only accountable to the people on one day (election day) during their term of office. Four year terms would only make them even less accountable.
    niemakawa
    25th Jul 2017
    3:30pm
    I agree. One day of the year abouts sums it up. Yet to claim Government a party must have a majority of seats or form a coailition to achieve that. The emphasis is on the word majority. Yet during office all they do is insult us and pander to minority groups . I will only ever vote for a Party that is Nationalistic and therefore pro-Australian values and considers the needs of Australians first and foremost. Globalist Parties Libs/Lab/Greens have destroyed the heart and soul of this once great thriving Nation, and left the majority in despair.
    niemakawa
    25th Jul 2017
    2:45pm
    Libs/Lab/Greens not to be trusted, so it's a definte no from me.
    MON
    25th Jul 2017
    4:10pm
    Fully support a 4 year fixed term and a 2 term policy for PM. It works here in Victoria and my preferred party is in opposition, but we are yet to set a 2 term policy for premier!
    PlanB
    25th Jul 2017
    4:24pm
    The way they have been going 4 months is far too bloody long!
    PlanB
    25th Jul 2017
    4:27pm
    In fact, I would like to be able to let us all have a vote at any time to vote the bastards OUT if they are not keeping their promises -- Abbott would have lasted about 2 weeks
    jackyd
    25th Jul 2017
    6:16pm
    So the Prime Minister called the Leader of the Opposition to discuss this...Amazing!
    Goes to show what we are dealing with currently so a definite No.
    TREBOR
    25th Jul 2017
    6:27pm
    Yes - The Tag Team in lockstep on any and every issue that benefits themselves personally or in their pursuit of as near absolute control over this nation and its direction as possible.

    Imagine the similarity with a Hitler government from a tame Senate that was nothing but a rubber stamp?
    MICK
    25th Jul 2017
    8:28pm
    Which is precisely what this lot want. Read Geezer's view of the senate. Identical to this government's view.
    Herr Abbott is gone but perhaps Son of Abbott will take control of the army and sack the Senate.
    TREBOR
    26th Jul 2017
    8:14pm
    Herr Abbolph is merely holidaying in Spandau while he writes his epic - Mine Camp... he'll be back to make a proper revolution next time...

    History is funny, neh?
    Rosret
    25th Jul 2017
    6:57pm
    A 4 year term is a good move. We need more long term planning for infrastructure and it would give the governing party time to make their promises a reality.
    It will also save $m not going to the polls so often.
    Anonymous
    27th Jul 2017
    4:45am
    Except that we'd have to tolerate a BAD government for 4 years. Bottom line: If they were performing, term wouldn't be a problem. They'd be repeatedly re-elected as happened in past decades. It's only because they are useless, corrupt, self-interested, and inept that they aren't performing. It's nothing to do with how long their term is. What we need is a way to get rid of those who stuff up long before their term expires, not to have them locked in for longer.
    Retired Knowall
    27th Jul 2017
    7:23pm
    Agree Rosret, in my business I have a Yearly, 5 Yearly and 10 Year plan. I could not survive if I was limited to short term (3 year) plans.
    extending the term to 4 or even 5 years may make the voters think long and hard before casting their vote.
    Rainey, again how do explain how the current mob got re-elected?
    Anonymous
    28th Jul 2017
    3:17am
    I wish I knew why some idiots voted for the current mob, Retired Knowall, but they did tell a lot of lies. And we really had no valid choices. They are all equally inept, dishonest and self-interested. I can't find a single politician worthy of my vote!

    The problem isn't the term, and extending it will only worsen things. The problem is that our whole system is misguided and unworkable and it results in politicians who have no interest in the job they are supposed to be doing, but are only there for their own gain. We need to abolish the two-party system and the preferences system. We need to slash politician's salaries and benefits to a tiny fraction of what they are now. We need to make it easier for ordinary Australians with the right knowledge and intent to influence political decisions.

    There is a party now working on a plan to let the people vote on policies electronically, instead of letting politicians make critical decisions. Maybe that's a step in the right direction. What is certain is that we need RADICAL CHANGE. And fixed four year terms are NOT the answer.

    Of course, RK, your comments about business plans are valid. The difference is that your business plan is devised and implemented by someone whose focus is building the business - not by people whose goal is to destroy the business for their own personal gain. A nation is NOT a business. It's a society. It's the notion that running it is akin to running a business that is resulting in so much of the damage and destruction happening in our society today.
    GeorgeM
    25th Jul 2017
    11:56pm
    Bad idea to increase to 4 year terms. They would get Entitled to their lifelong min 50% of Salary pensions after just 2 terms (8 years), instead of needing their 3rd term.
    Also, no need for more than 3 years - If they couldn't get their act together in the 1st year and implement their agenda by the 2nd year, they are incompetent people who always demand more time! But, it could be made a Fixed 3-year term, subject to the following:
    I support MICK and Sen.Cit.84 comments regarding adding provision for Recall of non-performers or the Govt itself (example: promise-breakers such as Abbott & co) at any time initiated by online voting on petitions.

    26th Jul 2017
    12:38am
    Just get rid of state governments and limit the powers of local government
    Privatize as much as possible and make federal government leaner

    Governments only get in the way of economic growth

    Make them the impotent bereucrats that they are in charge in enforcing policy

    Useless pieces of shit
    niemakawa
    28th Jul 2017
    4:55pm
    Parliament should sit for 48 weeks of the year, then they will have more than enough time to get this Country back in order. Lazy s*ds.