the US has a policy where any president cannot be elected for more than two terms, the reason behind this policy is that the US has new presidents who present a fresh pair of eyes.

makes sense, so do u reckon such a policy should be adopted in Australia?

No. I think it is a bit arbitrary. Let the people decide when to turf out an old PM.

Our PM does not have the same power that the president does. Parliament and even his own party can oust him without an election.

Also, the position of PM is not even in the constitution. It would be a bit hard to legislate against a role that only exists by tradition anyway.

so u would risk having a George W Bush type (i.e. incompetent) prime minister, even if they are very popular and still manage to win every election?

personally, after seeing George W Bush and how he has handled the Iraq war, i'm very happy that the US has that maximum two-term policy.

You can always try to build an argument that democracy is bad because people are stupid and vote in idiots, but there is no way around that that makes the problem better. If the people want the PM back in again, they can have him. If they don't, they know what to do.

Yes, I agree. I like the idea of 4 year terms, and possibly a max of 3 terms to be elected.

After less than 10 years, people have done their best. Power groups have aligned.

What about this - is it a good idea?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2005/03/27/1332147.htm

A federal Liberal MP says a referendum on the introduction of four-year parliamentary terms should be held at the next election.

Victorian Liberal MP and chairman of the electoral matters committee, Tony Smith, says the current three- year terms for federal Parliament are too short.

"An extra year gives more time for government and policy making in between elections," he said.

"I think it's something the public would welcome. I think it's also something the business community would welcome in terms of certainty."

Mr Smith says a referendum should be held at the next election and if it is supported, four-year terms could be introduced from 2010.

But he says the government of the day should still have the discretion to decide the date of the election, rather than the introduction of a fixed polling date.

Pre determined polling dates would be good to avoid the government calling an election only when it thought it would win. (Struggling to hold on to power is not what politics should be about.)

Connie - yes, predetermined polling dates is a good idea.
On reconsideration I'ld go for 5 year terms. A max of 2 for any leader.
Gives them a decade at the top.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/November-3-firms-as-election-date/2007/08/09/1186530529215.html

November 3 has firmed as the federal election date after stronger-than-expected jobs figures increased the likelihood of another interest rate rise before the end of the year.

wrote on May 7^th, 2007 at 2:54pm:

so u would risk having a George W Bush type (i.e. incompetent) prime minister, even if they are very popular and still manage to win every election? personally, after seeing George W Bush and how he has handled the Iraq war, i'm very happy that the US has that maximum two-term policy.

I agree JJJ..I like the two term system.if we had that here..Howard would not have done as much damage as he has to date.

I think its s great idea. I think compulsory voting is wrong too.

A lot of badly cast votes due to compulsion rather than a desire to effect positive change on behalf of begrudging/disintrerested voters.

Oceans, who would we have had instead?

freediver wrote on Aug 11^th, 2007 at 9:54am:

Oceans, who would we have had instead?

as leader?

Whoever was campaiging for the job. Rudd etc..Anyone would have been better than Howard.

It would have been another liberal.

The thing is, PM is a natural leadership position, not a constitutional one. You can't prevent Howard from leading the group of people who control the lower house, even if they did nominate someone else as the technical leader.

Another Liberal leader?


I wont pretend to understand the mechinastions of how this works...

But I still think the two term system is , as JJJ pointed out a good idea for fairness and the health of Government.

At the federal election you vote for a local representative who sits in the lower house of parliament. Traditionally, these representatives then get together when they arrive in Canberra and form a team (a party, coalition or group) that has 50% or more of the members of the lower house. If they can work together as a team, they can control the lower house and choose which bills get passed into law. This is what is called 'forming government.' They also elect a person to represent the government. This is the PM, or the premier in the case of state governments. The PM is elected by the members of the house of representatives. It is not recognised in the cosntitution, but is just recognition that that person leads the group of people who control the lower house of parliament. They are the most powerful person in the country, although he can get dumped by his own team at any time, or a new coalition could form and elect a different leader.

It doesn't make sense to try to limit their terms, because you can't stop a person from leading the members of parliament. He would still be the most powerful person in the country and call all the shots.

---

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Election-campaign-a-scandal-Brumby-says/2007/10/09/1191695886940.html

The next federal government should introduce fixed four-year terms to avoid relentless phoney election campaigns, Victorian Premier John Brumby says.

Mr Brumby said Prime Minister John Howard's refusal to announce an election date was a scandal.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Rudd-would-seek-fouryear-fixed-terms/2007/11/20/1195321764907.html

Labor would seek a mandate from the community to put in place fixed, four-year electoral terms if it wins government.

Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd told reporters he would put the issue to a referendum if he won government.

"I do not believe it is proper for the prime minister of the day, to simply on the basis of personal whim, to decide what an election date is," he said.

"It is just wrong. I think it is entirely appropriate to have fixed four year terms into the future and that's why we would be seeking a mandate for that at a subsequent referendum."

Another thing I agree with rudd on.

We should have an election on a set day every time. Same as the melb cup.
I'd prefer a 5 year term, max of 2 per PM.
4 is ok though

http://news.smh.com.au/qld-to-explore-fouryear-fixed-terms/20080228-1vhg.html

A working party will determine the timing and details of a referendum on fixed four-year parliamentary terms in Queensland, state parliament has been told.

Parliament on Wednesday night unanimously passed a motion to take a formal vote on the issue.

Premier Anna Bligh on Thursday told parliament she would invite two MPs from the National and Liberal parties and two Independents to join the working party.

"When I became premier I made a commitment to bring fresh thinking and new ideas to the job and to take things out of the too-hard basket," Ms Bligh said.

"The introduction of four-year terms will bring Queensland into line with all other states and territories, and local government here in Queensland.

"It allows for long-term planning, enhances business confidence and it saves money."

I dont understand why if you have an excellent PM you wuld want to force teh population to get rid of him and replace him with someone not as good...

5 years term sounds great btw.