Other people are turned off by the way legislation is rammed through the House without proper consultation, by the constant use of urgency, and the feeling that Parliament is increasingly operating like an elected dictatorship.
Even those who take the time to participate in the parliamentary process, often come away feeling frustrated and disillusioned.
A young man who took the trouble to make a submission to a select committee last year said he found the whole experience disempowering and futile. He was given two minutes to make his submission, and no one listened to him. "The submission process is like a democratic placebo," he concluded. "It gives people the illusion of participating in democracy, but in reality it does nothing but waste a lot of people's valuable time."
So if we want to restore credibility to the political process, and encourage people to become more politically engaged, we need to review the way Parliament works, and how it can be modernised and made more democratic. And I don't mean the minor tinkering with a few rules that Parliament's standing orders committee does periodically, but a thorough, impartial review of every aspect of the way Parliament works.
After all, Parliament is always calling on other institutions to lift their game and become more productive. Isn't it time for Parliament to lift its own game?
The truth is that a lot of parliamentary procedure is arcane, and in need of modernisation. Parliament doesn't accept e-petitions and many other aspects of digital democracy. There are more than 400 rules, called standing orders, which govern the way Parliament operates, and many are hopelessly out of date.
The government of the day has far too much power and control over the House of Representatives, which operates, much of the time, like a rubber stamp. There are few opportunities for opposition MPs to have any real influence over policy and legislation, and this contributes to the sense of frustration and powerlessness many MPs feel in opposition.
The control the government exerts over the legislature is a real concern, because unlike most other Westminster democracies, we have no second house and no written constitution, so there are few checks and balances on the potential abuse of executive power.
Backbench MPs have a bit more influence in select committees. But even select committees are controlled by the government, which appoints committee chairs, makes sure it has a majority on all key committees, and vetoes agenda items such as parliamentary investigations which could be politically embarrassing.
Parliament seems to be endlessly in session, but there are seldom really constructive or thoughtful debates in the House, and question time, which should be the showcase of our democracy, frequently degenerates into a pointless slanging match, with MPs hurling abuse and insults at each other.
Despite a third of MPs being women, Parliament is dominated by a handful of men and it still operates, a lot of the time, like an old boys club.
And paid lobbyists and powerful vested interests have far more influence in our Parliament than ordinary citizens. There are very few opportunities for members of the public to influence the Parliamentary agenda -committees can simply refuse to consider petitions from citizens, for example, without any good reason.
These are just some of the reasons why we need to reform our Parliament.
The most important reform, in my view, would be to give more power and independence to the House of Representatives, so that it can counter-balance the power of the executive, and better hold government to account.
A positive move in this direction would be a rule that the Speaker, who controls the House, is selected by a free, secret ballot and severs all political connections, as happens in the United Kingdom. This would ensure the Speaker was always impartial, and made decisions in the interests of Parliament, rather than the party he/she belonged to.
Other reforms I would like to see are more free votes in Parliament, and more time for legislation that is not sponsored by government to be debated in Parliament. In the United States any member of the House or Senate has the right to prepare legislation, and have it debated, and our MPs should have this right as well.
Strengthening select committees, making them more independent, and giving them greater investigation powers would help make Parliament more democratic. So would a requirement that select committee chairs are elected by secret ballot, not appointed by government. This would help ensure that committee chairs were independent and impartial, and not simply carrying out the orders of the government of the day.
If the House of Representatives had more independence, and backbench MPs had more opportunity to influence legislation and policy, I believe Parliament would be a more positive and constructive place.
Hopefully, reforms such as these would help usher in a less adversarial and a more consensus way of operating in Parliament, as MMP was supposed to do, and a Parliament that was less dominated by tribal warfare between the two main parties.
Unfortunately, such changes are unlikely to come from Parliament itself. Politicians are notoriously reluctant to rock the boat, or to make any significant changes to the way they work. Most are fearful of any change that might be to their political disadvantage, and will only embrace changes they consider politically expedient.
That's why I suspect the impetus for a reform of Parliament needs to come from outside-by an independent review of our parliamentary democracy.
