Time for Voters' Question Time

Day after day, week after week, year after year, we see parliamentary question time (both federal and state) degenerate into a farce of dorothy-dixers, political point-scoring, obfuscation and name-calling. 

Very occasionally, but increasingly rarely, some useful information is elicited. 

Both sides of politics, whether in government or opposition, are equally to blame, so let's think about how we might actually get some value from Question Time.

Here's a 'radical' (ie democratic) thought. Instead of politicians setting the questions, why not let voters do so? 

The on-line technology to do this already exists. In the UK, e-petitions gaining 10,000 valid signatures will get a response from Government and those with 100,000 will be considered for debate in the Parliament (https://petition.parliament.uk). In the past two years, 380 e-petitions have received a government response and 48 have been debated in Parliament - sometimes with a full day of debate. 30 are currently awaiting a government response and 7 a debate in Parliament.

Only 14 petitions with the requisite 100,000 signatures have been refused debate in Parliament.

Incidentally, e-petitions seem to be totally beyond the WA Parliament (which still requires hard copy with written signatures). E-petitions are accepted by the Federal Parliament, but are referred to the appropriate Minister rather than debated  under public scrutiny.

If our Parliaments and Government find e-petitions too threatening, perhaps we could (in the words of Monty Python) make the move 'from accountancy to lion-taming via banking' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azkFz1ZbXyU). 

It would be a brave PM, Premier or Minister who responded to a question from voters by slagging off the questioners or effectively refusing to answer the question.

Do Unto Others …………

Minister for Transport and Agriculture, Dean Nalder, has followed Tony Simpson in resigning from Cabinet and former Minister, Helen Morton, has come out in support of them.

There is common thread in these three narratives and that is arrogance, lack of communication and even bullying.

Tony Simpson is reported as saying he was kept in the dark by the Premier’s Office and had to “second guess” Colin Barnett’s policy positions by listening to talkback radio. There were numerous examples of this lack of communication during the local government so-called reform fiasco, including when Col unilaterally ran up the white flag despite being defeated on only three of the proposals.

Dean Nalder is reported as saying "Colin is making irrational decisions without consultation with respect to Ministers". He instanced Perth Freight Link, the sealing of the Cape Leveque Road and the announcement of new Boyanup sale yards, all matters within his portfolios, as cases where the Premier directed him without discussion or made announcements without even informing him.

Former Minister, Helen Morton, is even more forthright. According to the ABC's Jessica Strutt, Helen Morton has accused staff in the Premier's office of running a "machine" of bullying, intimidation and threats of ministers. Morton says both Tony Simpson and Dean Nalder, who have quit Cabinet, have been victims of it. She also saw it when she was a minister.

Clearly, Col cannot continue as leader of the WA Liberals (and hence as Premier), without the confidence of key Liberal MPs or of the community, but it is not clear who might replace him. This itself is a direct consequence of Col's arrogance and bullying.

For me, I can't see anyone currently in the Parliamentary Liberal Party who has the qualities necessary to be an effective Premier. After the March 2017 election, the Liberals' talent pool will be considerably smaller.

Meanwhile, head-in-the-sand Mount Lawley MLA, Michael Sutherland (in whose electorate I now unfortunately reside after the recent boundary changes) said there is no leadership crisis, despite the current leader being so on the nose (Crisis 1) and the total lack of competent alternative leaders in the Parliamentary Liberal Party (Crisis 2).

The manner of Simpson and Nalder making their announcements suggests that their frustration has driven them to "do unto Col as he has done unto them". I can only hope that whoever is Liberal leader after the next few days (even if it is still Col) learns the pragmatic lesson of 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'.

New Blog: Capital City Citizens' Committee

http://capitalcitycitizenscommittee.blogspot.com.au

I'll still be commenting here on the City of Perth Bill and other local government matters, but there is a new blog on the block (http://capitalcitycitizenscommittee.blogspot.com.au) focussing on what is needed to establish an effective capital city for Western Australia and all Western Australians.

The Capital City belongs to all Western Australians, not just the ratepayers, residents and businesses of the City of Perth. We are all citizens of our Capital City.

As well as drawing attention to the flaws of the current City of Perth Bill and urging its rejection by the Parliament, the CCCC is constructively working to identify the functional and legislative basis for a Capital City of which all Western Australians can be proud.

Simpson Nonsense and Inconsistency Again

On 21st May, Simpson told the Parliament that he was "working with the City of Subiaco" (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/porkies-in-parliament.html).

On 18th June, he told the Parliament that "one letter has gone from the department to request a meeting with Subiaco CEO and Mayor", but that he has had no reply. In view of the Subiaco Mayor's statement that the City of Subiaco has had no contact from the department or the Minister since March, why hasn't the Minister checked that the letter was actually received. Perhaps it's still sitting in his out-tray waiting for him to sign it.

On The Parliamentary Record

Not that we needed it to be so, given the public statement in the West Australian on Tuesday, but still good to see it confirmed in the Parliament.