WA's Tier 2 Political Parties - Where Now, Where Future?

WA's Upper House is going to be part of the lynch pin for policy & legislative progress in this new WA Parliament. It hasn't sat yet & already some journos are getting ready for uncertain times. This entry is based on a view from a particular perspective. PHON, Greens, NatsWA & the SFFP are going to be well amongst the horse trading and the genuine development of WA's recovery. The Greens I'm not overly sure about but PHON I'm concerned about. Genuine folk, but are they part of eastern states franchise who will veto WA decisions to suit her senate standing with voters?
The ray of light & hope to me at least comes from the NatsWA & the SFFP members. In the case of the NatsWA, its a long held view by some that the NatsWA aren't really conservatives. They will challenge the status quo & won't religiously stick to the conservative play book. They will jump onto new ideas & present a good deal of independent free thinking. The SFFP is probably more Liberal aligned than any non Liberal group but still, they're independent. I think it'll be that the NatsWA & the SFFP won't get a lot their way in this next parliament, or not all their way but their way will be centred on what's good for WA as a whole. Scrappy fighters causing people to challenge their thinking is a good thing, whether than means the Labor/Liberal Duopoly concede to NatsWA or SFFP thinking is another thing.
NatsWA & SFFP present our best bet for our state going forward & a little bottleneck that causes all to slow down & free think is not such a bad thing. That's the premise...

I'm only going to look at the Tier 2 Parties I'm interested in and they're probably the only two that are interested in the things I'm interested in. No not the Greens, as they have a foundation which seems very fluid and means different things to different people so barge poling them as they'd be too much for this blog effort. Looking at The Nationals WA & The Shooters, Fishers & Farmers Party. I can't add Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party (PHON) because I think they're on borrowed time. Whilst the WA candidates might be genuine, I don't think the over arching party premise is really all that interested in WA or rural & regional WA. I think the PHON will go the way of the Palmer United Party, goodness knows it's done the partial implosion thing already and thrown plenty of their own folk under the bus. Yes the Liberal Democrats have an elected candidate, Aaron Stonehouse but when the journos try to contact him, they get put through to an eastern states handler. This concerns me, PHON & LDP MPs total 4 and they possibly more beholden to an eastern states person/party?

I think the "Deplorable" vote effect may still has some gas in the tank & maybe still have come next State Election but I think the PHON will be exceptionally lucky to have a single elected member in the next state Parliament. So I'll just focus on the other Tier 2 Parties.

Both are rural/regional based or at least equally focused. Nats here are definitely different than their eastern states counter parts by & large and the SFFP may have some minor differences from their eastern states counterparts too, well time'll tell. Downside is the eastern perception can affect some people's thinking here when looking at the WA Tier 2 Parties.

Some of the eastern states pockets of Nats are "country party" centred and others are LNP to the point where there are elected MPs state & federal (over there) that are just faction parts of the Liberal Party whether intentional or not.

Here, not so much. With NatsWA there are several pivotal milestones that are often forgotte or misunderstood.

1) 2008 - the toss up whether Nats WA would form government with Labor or Liberals
2) The City of Perth Bill - Opposing the Liberal Party on it as it spelt more amalgamations of rural shires.
3) The proposed Sale of Fremantle Port - Again opposing the Liberal Government on it

Just these 3 things alone show the NatsWA actually isn't a "Conservative" party at all. A conservative party would consult the Ideology Playbook and would not depart from it. On these 3 ocassions alone it demonstrated it wasn't doomed to stay shackled, it was determined to be independent and free thinking. I wish I could visit a parallel universe where the NatsWA did form government in 2008 with the Labor Party. I can only speculate how well or bad that would have gone, but all things aside, it would have cemented the NatsWA as being independent and unafraid of change or finding what they think is the best fitting solution to a given problem and not repeat party history, again and again...like a fool returning to their folly.

Shooters Fishers & Farmers Party(WA) pretty much is Rick Mazza MLC. He was breifly one of 2 SFFP MPs in WA, now the only one again. In his first 18 months in his first term, he sat on 4 Standing & Sitting Committees whilst many from the same chamber sat on just one and some even none. He's got the track record of punching above his weight. Hopefully that continues. He has the advantage of being the only elected member...which may only be a small advantage. Dowside is most the SFFP MPs in Parliament are over east where the Nats are seen as a Liberal Party faction or Liberal controlled side kick circus. Certainy some of the SFFP members over there think that. Robert Borsak even told me as much after the Orange by-election. I said to him I thought it boded well for country people that hopefully the Nats over there would wake up and work more closely with the SFFP to gather good outcomes for country people, to advance rural & regional Vic/NSW. Ahhh not quite how he saw it. He said they didn't want to work with the Nats, wanted nothing to do with them, they wanted the Nats out of parliament completely and the SFFP wanted all their seats.

So the east coast has huge voids of seperation between the Nats & the SFFP...even if they're desires and not actual differences.

In WA some people see the SFFP as "Liberals with guns and farmers with fishing rods". Its a whole lot deeper than that but pigeon holes tend to be very general and less than specific.

The Nats are slowly being seen as Independent & seperate from the Liberals but many people see them as traditional conservative partners of the Liberals and only differing on a few grounds. Think the NatsWA lost the opportunity to push the angle of being Independent, Independently Thinking and Independent Free Thinkers that they probably are.

Strangely if the NatsWA aren't Liberal Party faction, then SFFP shouldn't be either. If the Nats here are different than the east coast then the SFFP approach has to be different too.
There is no "LNP" in WA. There is only one SFFP in WA.
Why would the SFFP & the Nats here be working as closely as possible where they can?

Hopefully they will. I'm yet to see a Firearms Policy from the Nationals.

The cross bench in the Upper House here is a precarious place and its going to be interesting to watch & follow. Hopefully the NatsWA, the SFFP & PHON can work together well whether its supporting Liberal or Labor legislation. Hopefully they willgo for supporting rural & regional WA.

Goodness knows I have little faith in the Liberal/Labor Duopoly or the Greens in that regard.
I hope I can see more policy similarities amongst the the Nats & SFFP. They do need to work together, especially as the SFFP isn't going to replace all the Nats.

In WA we need NatsWA & SFFP working very closely together and hopefully where possible the PHONs won't be waiting for instructions daily from Pauline Hanson or the Cormann/Cash Dinner Club.