Is Your Local State or Federal MP A Total Joke? Here's the best test at the moment.

The Indigenous Voice to Parliament

Don't take my word for it, look into it properly. And before you start on that journey may I say...

GOOD LUCK FINDING DETAIL (apparently some people need only a bland concept)
Disclaimer - 15th of December 2022 as this is typed. As much detail as possible has been gathered, see if you can find any more specific detail whatever date it is when you read this.

So far the PM & other Labor MPs that dare speak on it are either full of vague motherhood statements rich & over flowing with emotional sentiment, with lashings of guilt for anyone not getting on board.
The Devil is in the lack of detail & if you're supporting a constitutional change of huge signifigance with little chance of repeal or amendment once in...well you're a fool buying poison or a person who should not be in parliament.

The aim has been clearly made. Pass the Referendum THEN and only then, sort out the detail of what the changes to the constitution shall be...via the parliament.
In others we the people are expected to pass a refendum on a constitional amendment with no detail at all & gift that role away from us the people, to a ruling political party.

THAT IS THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROCESS IS MEANT TO ALLOW. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE PROCESS IS DESIGNED TO PREVENT.

The process is very clear a referendum is required to Amend the Constitution. A bill containing the Amendment must be presented to Federal Parliament & passed. Once passed writs are obtained and the process rolls on & eventually the enrolled voters amongst the people vote on whether to pass the amendment or not.

THAT is not what the Federal Labor Government wants or is pushing. Instead they want you to pass a referendum to change the constitution that the Parliament will decide on AFTER the referendum.

Now read this slowly & read it a few times. If that's truly their aim, they want a ruling political party to change the constitution not the people. Labor, the Greens, the Teals, Andrew Gee & whoever else want the constitution to be changed to a model we don't know about, that we cannot assess will be effective nor how it will work, what is powers, structure, costs, reporting nor compliance to what rules are.

ARE YOU READY FOR THAT? IF YOU'RE A MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT (a legislator, a law maker on our behalf) AND YOU SUPPORT THAT, PLEASE RESIGN FROM POLICTICAL LIFE NOW

Now if you want to know what the Voice might look like, you're going to have to read the 272 page Report (link below. Go read it. Many of your parliamentarians haven't) that was handed down middle of last year. I read it as soon as it was available to the public. Some political players, MPs & parties had already formed set & passed policies to support the Voice BEFORE the report was even finished. Some 2 years before when no options or details had even beem discussed.

As they say in the classics, "HOW YOU LIKE THEM APPLES?"
Chances are they're pineapples and you're about to have those pineapples inserted in you sideways. Brace yourself.

Here's some of the thing that may or may not be coming because its just some of the things in the 272 page report - 

1) Its a Voice to Parliament AND Government. Meaning it's potentially having say & influence over Bills that are being presented to Parliament AND also having a say and/or influence with Bureaucrats over Acts that are already in place & how they are to be enacted & played out in the community. Again, we have no idea if there's any veto involved & who holds it. Its another devil in the lack of detail.
In any case that's 2 Voices not one. And you need to see this for what it really is. This is potentially TWO SEPERATE LOBBY GROUPS FULLY PAID FOR BY ALL AUSTRALIAN TAXPAYERS FOR THE BENEFIT OF ITS MEMBERS. WHOSE MEMBERSHIP IS CENTRED PURELY & SOLELY ON RACE. Or as the report vaguely determines, membership is restricted solely to "Indigenous Identity" that is by virtue of a person's race.
It's TWO SEPERATE LOBBY GROUPS that are fully funded by the Australian Taxpayer to influence the Parliament & the Government department. Until we're given a full & proper model to consider, it is very reasonable to assess the Pro Voice commentary & consider that is the aim & therefore we should oppose it.

2) Those Political Parties who are supporting it have done so without knowing or considering any FINAL MODEL because, lets be frank, there is no final model. Today it's December 24th. There is still no model at all but there are plenty of suggestions in the 272 page "expert report" (Link Below) of what it "might look like.

This is something to consider & not forget. Emboldened text for extra emphasis...

Some MPs & some political parties decided to support this when it was first raised, some later in 2018, some in 2019 and yet that report wasn't finished until JULY 2021. 

Yes that's right, no final report with options until July 2021, its now mid December 2022 and there's still NO FINALISED MODEL.
And yet some political parties, some MPs have chosen to support a constitutional change they cannot define. Who even does this???
Andrew Gee even resigned from his party over this. Of all the issues he could have resigned over, he chose the stance on a constitutional change with no solid final model with actual detail. I think he's broken ranks for other reasons and this one provides him good cover to do so whilst gathering support from anyone not happy with the Nats. I gift no real reasoned decision to do with the Voice and smell the strong whiff of rank political opportunity. 

3) Some of the porponents have varying ideas of what will happen. This graphic was on the Uluru Statement website but since removed. It may be because the website has been totally revamped & its yet to be re-posted but it was on the previous website.

Two sovereign nations...based on race. The report mentions the 2 delegates per state will need to meet certain criteria, including "indigenous identity" which whilst that is mentioned it's not defined at all.
And to think some political parties & some MPs decided to support this anyway. Not their fault is it? They decided without any facts or reports...just went with their gut feeling instead of waiting for facts. Well its facts now & take close note of who amongst them has not changed their view to an even fair middle ground of "Look there's much confusion and we as a party will be revisiting it in its entirity to get a better understanding to make a better informed decision."
I think some will stupidly dig in & hold fast to their intellectually bankrupt decision that was made without any detail nor understanding because they might be seen as fools. Well so be it to their political demise

4) The Big One - Labor MPs have already said there will be no detail until after the referrendum is passed. One MP famously said they didn't want it getting bogged down in detail, that it needed to be passed & the government can sort the final model & Voice's foundations & make up afterwards.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE PROCESS TO CHANGE THE CONSITUTION IS SET UP TO SPECIFICALLY AVOID. GOVERNMENTS AND/OR RULING PARTIES ARE EXPRESSLY PREVENTED FROM CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION FOR VERY GOOD REASON. ITS BLOODY DANERGOUS AND ITS COMPLETELY WRONG. ONLY THE PEOPLE VIS REFERENDUM CHANGE IT- NEVER THE GOVERNMENT. NEVER, REPEAT NEVER.

What the federal Labor Government is doing & what other MPs from Labor & other parties are doing is approving the wrongful alteration of the Australian Constitution which the Legal Framework is specifically designed to prevent. You cannot sign a document and sign away the rights of protection of a child...rightly so. And you cannot possibly allow a political party to have permission to change the constitution instead of the people.

I cannot understand how some from a supposedly Conservative Party or those with a Law Degree in the Labor Party are happy to allow this to happen.

5) I can come up with quite a number of equally concerning issues this "Voice" will or might cause. This is probably enough, should have been enough to call for a finalised model up front.
Silence though.
Even those in favour of whatever they think the Voice is should be voting no until there is a fully finalalised model BEFORE the referendum.
If you MP or the party you support or are financial member of actually support the Voice despite these concerns...you're probably being sold very short by grifter theatre props who don't know the issue, don't know anymore than a profoundly vague concept and if so...they're exactly the people we do not need in Parliament. You have your Australian version of left wing lunancy that is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Yes, if they'd be every bit as bad as her. No reasoned & informed decision. Just emotive sentiment.

We're in troubling times & very much seems like the people we really need in parliament aren't and have no desire to go anywhere near it ever. A very well known, very well connected senior jouranlist told me a view which is probably based on far more knowledge than me.

I said I thought around 10% of every party were good, honest, well meaning MPs...that the others were people of previously floundering or stagnating careers or went into parliament as a means to be restructuring their significant personal debt. Or for the attention and hopefully best corporate box seats at the AFL/Cricket/Tennis or lots of free stuff & get credit for grants they didn't (hopefully) decide on.

He said my calculations more likely suggested I'm far too kind, that the percentage was much lower and "that parliament was a humidicrib for mediocity"

Pin them down on these matters & you will get profoundly vague motherhood statements...deflections, not concessions, no changes of heart or mind.

This is the mess we will contend with.
There is much more BAD legislation on the way

Here, click the link & read the 272 page report that didn't even exist when some MPs & some Political Parties made their decision on the Voice to Parliament. Not much point having a Race Based Tax Payer Funded Lobby Group to Parliament & Government when many of the MPs are not fit for purpose as law makers & cannot even attain embarassing mediocrity.

https://voice.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-12/indigenous-voice-co-design-process-final-report_1.pdf

Facepalm Alert - Proper Vetting & Testing of Apsiring Lawmakers, Candidates for Parliament

You don't have to work on a minesite to know to use a forklift in a workplace, you have to be trained, you have to have a ticket to use that machine. You wouldn't need to be experienced in working with light or heavy machinery to know there's a wide spread ZERO tolerance for drugs & alcohol in the worker's system.

You don't have to be a genius to know its a good idea for prison guards, professional fire fighters and many other careers to have not only random drug & alcohol tests in the work place but they also have to have very serious psychological testing when applying for the job.

You may or may not know that a growing number of Company Boards are not only considering "Psyche testing" as a part of vetting potential directors but some are already installing proper clinical style Personality Tests like the "OCEAN" tests.

But strangely, if you're looking at candidates for Parliament none of these apply. No they're not using heavy machinery. Its more serious than that, they're law makers & many of them are selected due to what some consider "appealing demographic traits" rather than life experience, involvement with small business, big business but the central aspect they are targeted for is "local prominence" and hopefully they're easy enough to teach some debating skills for the press. Not to answer questions but to not answer questions. Once elected they need to be able to deliver a tactical reply instead of an actual answer to a serious question.
Its the deflect/derail technique. Fill the air with somment that is profoundly vague but still loosely connected then pivot and point to another journalist for another question. If a journalist routinely applies too much heat, don't take their questions. Its referred to by some as the "freeze out". This is regularly coupled with the one on one pot shot or complaint to their line manager & then not long after take questions from them again as they'll generally get softened up & not make life difficult for the MP.

And this is why Cabinet members are very selective in how they speak to people. Many will avoid interviews on take back radio, its laden with traps & torchlight to truth. You might if you're in opposition try to get an interview but because a minister is not on first, TV & Radio are less likely to ge the opposition speksperson on. It would cause another freeze out.

Play the game, be happy with crumbs.

In opposition your best chance is to pick up the phone & ring into talk back radio. Only seen or heard of 4 MPs who've done it unannounced and guess what...they get patched through to the on air journo every single time. A lot of the lesser MPs won't do this of course & they maybe hope they will be forgotten for their absence or be mistaken for the few very good MPs who also rarely go on air.

With the level of Candidates routinely being so low, we have little to choose from. We can all list a number of dud MPs in every party. Its slim pickings on a good day.

In the end, we as a state or a nation suffer.

As a result we get people elected and the only contact with voters is one on one door knocking during campaigns & rarely ever any public gatherings where the public can ask questions. Like a TV interview, it cannot be controlled & manipulated by the MP. They're fully accountable & its in front of many people.

Time to bring back Politics in the Pub or every MP being required to hire a local hall for a Q&A sesssion with their electors to actually say what they themselves have actually done. My local memeber said they would be out voice in the McGowan Government. No word on what they have said on our behalf or why they voted on any given matter...nor what actual voice they actually put forward to the McGowan Government.
Lots of cutesy selfies at schools, civic groups, fun runs, life saving clubs maybe handing a giant cheque out to a group which is actually grant money, not a gift from any effort of the MP at all. It would be a serious breach of protocol and a borderline red flag for a parliamentary inquiry if the MP did arrange the money. Kinda sounds like over reach Burke Era style.

It is little wonder that MPs are not held in high regard, that mediocrity is either a hallmark or required job skill. That some appear to be people from stagnant go no where careers, they need some sort of public attention with an improved retirement plan or they need to restructure business or personal debt that their party's pre=selection committee didn't detect because they too are well below "fit for purpose" and didn't even look.

So yes, vetting needs to be a little more forensic, not just looking for electable traits on the facade level.

Until then actual Progressive or Conservative values are not required in a Progressive or Conservative party let alone any helpful skills as a legislator or life skills as a MP. You just need to be of a certain look in the respective electorate & hopefully half well known in sporting clubs.
Other than that you can be as smart as a bucket of fishbait with significantly less uses and you'll be snapped up as a Election Candidate. Compliance to up the chain of command whilst pushing money up the chain to have it drip fed back is not uncommon. Except I know one party candidate said he would meet all his costs himself & no money went up the chain. That party was happy with that when they thought they would have a candidate with deep pockets...which they did. They later were unhappy as they realised there was no pot to skim.

And that is just part of what we're up against as a society with faux legislators, theatre props. Some of whom do not read any bills put before parliament unless they're on a committee putting it together & just wait until they get the memo on which way to vote. You bet they do not want to stand accountable in their electorate. Then there are those party "lay members" who join to get either pre-selected & hopefully win a seat or get deeply involved in a party to work in a MPs office somewhere. To endear themselves they will get on lots of Party Organisation committees and positions that will give them some sort of vote or sway to get a job. Then once employed stay in those organisation positions, voting without ever putting it on a Conflict of Interest register. Yes, working for an MP or the government whilst sitting on what a judge would consider is the political party's board. And they think its 100% legit & ok...yeah, like a $3 note.

Corporate Governance in most parties is appalling & neck deep in non compliance or very poor process.
If you can't properly govern within a Not-For-Profit organisation how can you govern within a parliament?
They can't but they sure can pull off the acting.

Wrong Decisions By Australian Political Parties & Their Inability To Change

Lets glance at two big issues are glaring examples of Australian MPs & Australian Political Parties failing. And by failing we mean embarassing themselves & falling short VERY BADLY. Just 2 for now although this might turn into a long running thing.
Row vs Wade and the current "Indigenous Voice to Parliament".

I'd expect some of the harder left amongst the left parties & the Greens to get these badly wrong but to see some supposedly Conservative MPs get these woefully wrong was shocking & disappointing. Not at all inspiring in the general, genuine hope of a return to WISE Progressives vs REAL Conservatives in all our Australian legislatures.

If you're supporting a party that made supportive claims about with or these 2 issues, by all means take them to task & ask them to explain "their why". I suspect you're going to get more points that miss the mark, you are not going to get someone seeing the penny drop nor change their stance. Actually I'd expect you're going to be facing a virtue laden theatre prop giving you profoundly vague motherhood statements drenched in emotional generalities & completely void of fact, data or fit for purpose relevence. Because that is them to a tee.

Roe vs Wade.
This was a stunning failure by some MPs both State & Federal in Australia. The fact they commented on a foreign country's domestic matter is one thing, the fact they commented on the over turning of a court ruling in a foreign country is another. Yes the Australian media did but I have no problem with them reporting the news (albeit it generally reported badly by the more commentator types. It's here where the politicians should have takent he chance to shine AND GOT IT RIGHT. They did not.
They should have silently parked their virtue signalling and avoided looking like complete idiots. Some couldn't help it because they are complete idiots & virtue signallers,
Here's why there's even more reason to shake your head at their absurd comments and stances. Here's why we need to be very concerned they're really not fit for purpose in any Parliament at all.
Now remember this highly paid individuals are our LAW MAKERS. You should be very worried, very concerned on these 2 examples alone.

In a legal sense & every other, the original case was not actually about abortion. Read the original court readings & the review/legal reasoning that actually caused it to be over turned recently. Yes...the actual facts not whipped up feelings.

Their federal government can only rule on matters of a federal nature. Matters set out in the constitution. It cannot commit over reach and veto state law. The judges comments were clear, it was time to heed their own constitution properly, to read the constitution & follow it & where it is wrong or failing amend the constitution not avoid or side step it. The legal grounding was very clear, the original Roe vs Wade was Constitutionally flawed & the over turning now hands back State Laws to the States. Abortion was not banned at all. That is a media & social media lie. Abortion is now controlled by the states & the states are controlled by members of state legislature who are elected by the people. If significant people in a state want or don't want abortion the elected legislature makes laws to reflect the people of their state.
Under federal governance, laws can be passed that some states (by some majority) might agree with & others (by some majority) do not agree with. You have the Federal Government Over Reach that their Constitution clearly sets out to prevent.
The effect of Roe vs Wade being passed in 1973 meant for nearly 50 years the Federal Government was over ruling the will of electors in many states. That was over reach of State Sovreignty.

To put it in Australian political speak...thanks to our federation we have some matters managed by the federal government & other matters managed by each state government. There are matters that no state or the federal government on the other. A state government doesn't oevr rule National Defence or International Diplomacy. We might have state based trade offices, but WA does not have its own foreign diplomats etc.

Those political parties & MPs in Australia that cried out about Roe Vs Wade were deeply embarassing in their senseless mistake. It was not about abortion or the rights to have one nor ability to outlaw abortion. It was returning a matter to state legislatures where the people can alter the law...NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

If a US state wants to allow/ban abortion, it can. Just has to be passed in that state. Make it enough of an issue in whichever state, laws to allow/ban it can now happen. 

Why did some Australian political parties & MPs crank up about it?
Because...
a) they're idiots and didn't think
b) they approve of a federal government wrongly over ruling state law which undemocratic, politically foul.
c) they just went with what was "feel good" and appealing to people they hope are soft in the head & not interested in actual facts
d) they're all of the above.

Apart from the legal reasons on US Constitutional grounds, it was in the US. Its not Australian, its not a matter for the Australian Federal Parliament nor any Australian State Parliament. They should have stayed in the lane. I think they went for the soft headed, dim grab for support via daft virtue signalling.
Just plain grotesquely political wind sniffing.
  

The Indigenous Voice to Parliament

1) Its a Voice to Parliament AND Government. Meaning it's potentially having say & influence over Bills that are being presented to Parliament AND also having a say & influence with Bureaucrats over Acts that are already in place & how they are to be enacted & palyed out in the community. So that's 2 Voices which are really TWO SEPERATE LOBBY GROUPS who's membership is restricted solely to "Indigenous Identity" that is by virtue of a person's race.
It's TWO SEPERATE LOBBY GROUPS that are fully funded by the Australian Taxpayer to influence the Parliament & the Government departments.
There's enough there to oppose it on the "by virtue of race" and the taxpayer funded lobby group.

2) Those Political Parties who are supporting it have done so without any FINAL MODEL. Today it's December 15th. There is still no model at all but there are plenty of suggestions in the 272 page "expert report" (Link Below)

This is something to consider & not forget. Emboldened text for extra emphasis...

Some MPs & some political parties decided to support this when it was first raised, some later in 2018, some in 2019 and yet that report wasn't finished until JULY 2021. 

Yes that's right, no final report with options until July 2021, its now December 2022 and there's still NO FINALISED MODEL.
And yet some political parties, some MPs have chosen to support a constitutional change they cannot define. Who even does this???

3) Some of the porponents have varying ideas of what will happen. This graphic was on the Uluru Statement website but since removed. It may be because the website has been totally revamped & its yet to be re-posted but it was on the previous website.

Two sovereign nations...based on race. The report mentions the 2 delegates per state will need to meet certain criteria, including "indigenous identity" which whilst that is mentioned it's not defined at all.
And to think some political parties & some MPs decided to support this anyway. Not their fault is it? They decided without any facts or reports...just went with their gut feeling instead of waiting for facts. Well its facts now & take close note of who amongst them has not changed their view to an even fair middle ground of "Look there's much confusion and we as a party will be revisiting it in its entirity to get a better understanding to make a better informed decision."
I think some will stupidly dig in & hold fast to their intellectually bankrupt decision that was made without any detail nor understanding because they might be seen as fools. Well so be it to their political demise

4) The Big One - Labor MPs have already said there will be no detail until after the referrendum is passed. One MP famously said they didn't want it getting bogged down in detail, that it needed to be passed & the government can sort the final model & make up afterwards.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE PROCESS TO CHANGE THE CONSITUTION IS SET UP TO SPECIFICALLY AVOID. GOVERNMENTS AND/OR RULING PARTIES ARE EXPRESSLY PREVENTED FROM CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION FOR VERY GOOD REASON. ITS BLOODY DANERGOUS AND ITS COMPLETELY WRONG. ONLY THE PEOPLE VIS REFERENDUM CHANGE IT- NEVER THE GOVERNMENT. NEVER, REPEAT NEVER.

What the federal Labor Government is doing & what other MPs from Labor & other parties are doing is approving the wrongful alteration of the Australian Constitution which the Legal Framework is specifically designed to prevent. You cannot sign a document and sign away the rights of protection of a child...rightly so. And you cannot possibly allow a political party to have permission to change the constitution instead of the people.

I cannot understand how some from a supposedly Conservative Party or those with a Law Degree in the Labor Party are happy to allow this to happen.

5) I can come up with quite a number of equally concerning issues this "Voice" will or might cause. This is probably enough, should have been enough to call for a finalised model up front.
Silence though.
Even those in favour of whatever they think the Voice is should be voting no until there is a fully finalalised model BEFORE the referendum.

We're in troubling times & very much seems like the people we really need in parliament aren't and have no desire to go anywhere near it ever. A very well known, very well connected senior jouranlist told me a view which is probably based on far more knowledge than me.

I said I thought around 10% of every party were good, honest, well meaning MPs...that the others were people of previously floundering or stagnating careers or went into parliament as a means to be restructuring their significant personal debt. Or for the attention and hopefully best corporate box seats at the AFL/Cricket/Tennis or lots of free stuff & get credit for grants they didn't (hopefully) decide on.

He said my calculations more likely suggested I'm far too kind, that the percentage was much lower and "that parliament was a humidicrib for mediocity"

Pin them down on these matters & you will get profoundly vague motherhood statements...deflections, not concessions, no changes of heart or mind.

This is the mess we will contend with.
There is much more BAD legislation on the way

Here, click the link & read the 272 page report that didn't even exist when some MPs & some Political Parties made their decision on the Voice to Parliament. Not much point having a Race Based Tax Payer Funded Lobby Group to Parliament & Government when many of the MPs are not fit for purpose as law makers & cannot even attain embarassing mediocrity.

https://voice.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-12/indigenous-voice-co-design-process-final-report_1.pdf

Australia's Democracy...is it a Democracy & other odd ideas

Democracy. Do we have one?
Well couple of odd things. Some people go absolute ape sh!t over the "Murdoch Empire" and how they're so bias towards the Liberal Party and after the Victorian Labor Party won government some are saying it's a triumph over the Murdochs as well.

Ahhh...
Labor Held Governments In Australia
1) Federal Labor Government
2) Northen Territory State Government
3) Queensland Labor State Government
4) Victorian State Government
5) South Australian State Government
6) Western Australian State Government

The only 2 Parliaments in Australia that are not Labor are the NSW Government & the Tasmanian State Government. TWO out of EIGHT Parliaments are Labor held.
So if the Murdoch press are the immensely overly powerful king makers some are saying it is...then Murdoch is either failing as pro Liberal Party or they're Pro Labor.

One thing is guaranteed to continue. Murdoch won't be perfect & it will continue to be targeted at being politically biased towards Conservativism. (Yes that's two things because I two am not perfect although the imprefections list is a lot longer)

Having noted that SkyNews etc have been critical of various conservative parties I can't say they're pro Conservative across the board. Their commentators are expressing views, their own views. Whether they align with the Murdoch Family or not probably isn't due to a decree of the company. I note they employ ex-Senator Graham Richardson (Labor) among other a few other left leaners. I don't always agree with any Sky commentator but I don't see them as disagreeable nor being Murdoch Family puppets. If they were then what ate past & present comperes of The Project, The Drum, Insiders or writers for the Guardian or the West Australian?
If you think someone in Journalism is a political party puppet/muppet...call them out regardless of the party. Don't hit one side. But hard to say Murdoch is a threat to Australian Democracy.

Is there a possible threat to Democracy or sidelining democracy in Australia?

Big question but first you have to define what Democracy. Basic idea is the country or state run by the people, for the people, that is the people decide things.

Thats a great primciple but we cannot have a legislative life where citizens roll up & vote on everything so whilst our government is a "Constitutional Monarchy" its also using a format known as "Representative Democracy"

We send representatives to go into Parliament to represent us...that being democratic.

There is no perfect system. This system we have in Australia is probably the best of the imperfect systems in theory if not practice.

However you cannot get your local MP to do eveything exactly as you want...again that wouldn't work.
In theory they will take your input & they encourage you to contact them.

Now that seems pretty democratic-ish yeah?

What if the MP is in a Party where they have absolutely no say which way they vote in Parliament?
Democratic?

What if there are only select & rare occasions where the MPs are gifted a "conscience vote" from whoever controls the party?
Still Democratic?

What if they cross the floor without a conscience vote they're then expelled from the party & socially ex-commincated?
Still Democratic? 

Yes they set out their Party Platform...well some parties do. Some like to keep it vague so they can sniff the wind and shape shift. Some play games and keep policies to a minimum so the Parliamentary Party room can control what they do not their laymembers
Still Democratic?

We do not have a Democracy.
We have a Representative Democracy & it's a little vague who they really represent. During a campaign its you. After an election it is the party not the electorate.
Its not as represnetative as you think

 

 

Western Australia's Hospital/Nursing Crisis - How & When? Part 3

Now how do we fix the Hospital Crisis?
I think its fair to say this won't happen due to personal ambitions of many differing MPs and the respective political strategies (of all parties) to win at all costs by smashing the opposing party or parties.
Solutions & good outcomes are extemely elusive when its adversial & many run eagerly to the incendiary issues with petrol & gunpowder.

Here is an example of the problem and the reluctance of the entire Parliament to avoid this, to fix this.
It seems unrelated to The Health Crisis & directly it is. But the essence of this is a clear example of the an underlying variable or perhaps widespread mindset within the Parliament that will prevent reasoned & rational debate in the Parliament & instead always revert to point scoring & slagging matches.

The Premier had the opportunity to show statesmanship. He chose not to.
The Premier had the opportunity to seek solutions with the opposition FOR the WA people. He chose not to
The Premier had the opportunity to show statesmanship & set out the rules of engagement as shared solutions. He chose not to.

Read from Hansard...

Read the question two maybe 3 times, think on it a little before you read the answer.

Peter Rundle MLA - "Does the Premier believe that it is appropriate for fundraising and campaign training to be delivered by the Labor secretariat to publicly funded electorate officers during their work hours?"

I think that (if it happened) would not pass the pub test anywhere in WA and the only way a person would approve of that misuse of State money is if they're deeply, immensely welded onto a political party and they claim is leveled at their party. 
No, government funds should not be used to train Electorate Officers on recruiting members for a party, any party. They should not be involved in electioneering matters at all. They should not ever be involved in fundraising for their MP or their MP's party...EVER, let alone be trained in it during work hours, paid for by the tax payers. Never ever, ever.

The Premier mentions things in his reply that were not of the question at all. 
That's called a deflection & distraction and to add weight the Premier pulled in other unrelated training that then provides the false bolster to the tactical reply.
The Premier then added a warning shot, hoping to diffuse Peter Rundle and avoid a supplementary question...or perhaps baiting him to a supplementary question because he had prepared a verbal baseball bat

Premier Mark McGowan - "I could outline some of the activities of the National Party in its electorate offices."

Indeed he could outline such things & wouldn't blame him were he to first properly & clearly answer the question & then outline the activities of the National Party. In any case it was a prime opportunity for the Speaker to ask the Premier to answer the question, not offer a diversion reply with a possible threat. The Speaker did not, why? On that a bit later.

For now, just know that after the Premier's reply Peter Rindle MLA asked a Supplementary Question which are designed to dig deeper or to hopefully get an actual answer instead of the tactical reply. You can't ask the same question again.
Again read the question 2 or 3 times & ponder on it before reading the answer.

Read it twice, maybe three times then look at the answer
Peter Rundle MLA - "Can the Premier confirm that his Labor Party secretariat is delivering fundraising and campaigning training to electorate officers during work hours..."

There was no "yes" or "no" with an explanation. Instead you got a politically based tactical reply instead of an actual straight answer.

Peter Rundle MLA - "...and that the Premier sees no issue with this?"

Again there was no "yes" or "no" with an explanation. Instead you got a politically based tactical reply instead of an actual straight answer.

Premier Mark McGowan - "As I said to the member, staff are trained in how to use technology and those sorts of things by all political parties, but I am aware of the National Party’s state conference in 2021. What did it do? It used the electorate office of the Leader of the Opposition for Young Nationals events—for the Young Nationals annual general meeting. There it is. Not only did the National Party do it, but it published that it was holding those sorts of things there. The Leader of the Opposition’s staff were up there campaigning in the by-election for North West Central. Not only that, the Leader of the Opposition actually thanked them."

This part of the Premier's tactical reply with political shot across the chamber has several levels.
1) Trained in technology was not the question, misuse of Electorate Officers for membership, campaigning & fundraising was the issue. 

2) When he did cover misuse of Electorate Office & Electorate Officers it was in regards to the Young Nats having their AGM in the Electorate Office & possibly other party based functions positions. This is either wrong and so to is it wrong that WA Labor is training Electorate Staff during work hours on recruiting members, raising funds and improving their skills in campaigning. They're with BOTH bad or 'yeah it's not good but you did it too so there's nothing to see'

Then then president of the Young Nats works for Mia Davies in some capacity. The fact they held the AGM in the Electorate Office was wrong, stunningly wrong. This isn't just a rookie mistake, it's something very obvious. Shouldn't have happened. Heads should roll. Same for the matters the Crime & Corruption Commission is investigating with the WALabor Party

3) I don't doubt the Mia Davies Electoral Staff were up at the North West Central by-election campaigning. I think most of them are also Young Nationals. Now I don't know if it was in Electoral Office hours or if it was they took leave or if it was outside office hours. We'd need that clarified. I note that was the by-election that the Premier & Cabinet decided not to run a candidate in despite them only losing that see by around 300 votes. Apparently the North West Central electorate is not worthy of representation in Parliament nor the Labor Government via a WA Labor MP. They don't need North West Central so they can go hang.

It would seem that someone was watching closely to see if lines were crossed by Nationals & the Liberals and notes were taken for firing shots back.

4) I don't know if the Leader of the Opposition Mia Davies MLA thanked them or not, but if she did, if she approved of it then stunned & disappointed. Not only is it misuse, it might be deliberate misuse if it isn't a rookie mistake. She is not a rookie. However she should not be used as an excuse to let the WALabor Party off. Both need to apoligise to the Electorate & to WA voters generally.

Either both are wrong or right misuing Electorate Offices/Officers or "Nah, nah, you did it too, so there..."
Its wrong. Period, full stop,

But this is the probably with the very adversarial political landscape, do whatever you like...as long as you win. If the other side does wrong, keep that powder dry until you get picked on & use that stored fault to your advantage. Not to take you both to the principal's office for an ass whooping but use it as a "Awww well they did it too"

That renders the Parliament into a landscape where winning is the prime & sole target and you have to be careful of firing shots at the other side doing dodgy in case it comes back to haunt you.

No. Do what's right, not what's popular & hold yourself and your political opponents to the same high standard that we voters not only want, we expect.

Now the Speaker. Again, the Speaker could have intervened on the Premier and his answer but didn't.
Well why would you...politically you wouldn't. If you were keen on proper, clear, succinct, rational, well reasoned actual answers to the actual question you would have intervened.

Peter Rundle MLA has strict requirements & cannot re-ask a question but the Premier doesn't have to actually answer the question, he only has to reply. 

Often you hear the Speaker (and the President in the Legislative Council) of their stand in say that the government MP "has answered the question" when they clearly have not. They have replied & there is no chance in hell of Question Time being actual answers to actual questions and those let down with tactical replies aren't likely to make much noise about it...if they end up in Government they're going to want to be evasive as well.

Its time for political reform.
Its time the Speaker & the President were not elected members of Parliament. Its time each were a board of 5 members taking turns with a contract that runs the equivilent of 2 terms of parliament but they only change hald way thru a Parliamentary term so they are not affected by a change of government & perhaps selected & appointed by the WA Governor and ratified by the Parlianment at 90% approval.

We're not going to get a decent parliament until we get a de-politicised Speaker/President.
Now its the cherished appointment prior to their retirement.

That's where we're at. A highly politicised adversarial parliament, a less than non political President/Speaker with no courage for proper answers or unbiased control of the unruly and a "oh yeah its wrong but they did it too" landscape.

See it, know it...its there & how it is.
Watch the political will to change it from MPs. Yeah that will rides on the back of a unicorn farting glitter and dragging magical packets of Tim Tams that keep refilling each time one is taken

Western Australia's Hospital/Nursing Crisis - How & When? Part 2

However too many had too much invested in the tribal based "win at all costs" and for that you don't need you & you opponents coming together, you need your opponents over there where you can get a clear shot at them. Whilst its war anyone half inclined to be on your side before hand welds themselves to you no matter how bad you do. Anyone on the fence will lean with you once you've invested enough fear into them along with enough demonisation of the opposing party. Job done.
In effect its a political example of "Yes the patient died a horrible, painful & avoidable death, however the operation was a complete success and they surgeons deserve you complete adulation"
Politics In A Crisis 101.
Never let a good crisis go to waste, weaponise it & ride the shit out of that puppy.

What could have been done? Well WA's economic fortunes changed & they would have happened whether McGowan or Barnett had won power in 2017. If Barnett had won, I think we would have seen the coalition re-elected in 2021 & we'd be looking at a Coalition Era almost akin to the Charles Court era. Wasn't to be.
Straight after the 2017 we (regardless of the party winning power) should have been looking at nurses conditions, their pay, their productivity and going long and going wide to recruit new people into training.
Also, seeing if any of the nurses who left nursing could be encouraged to come back to nursing. In the short term recruit interstate & overseas nurses with attractive but short term contracts to make up the numbers in the short term.

Instead we've seen things decline further, a savage purge at St John Ambulance and even attempts to close down St John's contracts and fully socialise the Ambulance system as a Government owned & run service. Ahhh guess what? With that, Ambulance Ramping Hours Reporting was likely to disappear.

Had the Government, the Opposition & the Nurses gone indoors 6 years ago they might have got somewhere. But the political landscape was dialled in on a pathway of aggressive battle between the 2 major parties.
Where we are was predictable. The opposition gives as much in principle support to Nurses. Attend marches & rallies with nurses. Hold public meetings with nurses. Be sure to say whatever nurses want to hear then cuddle them with rousing words of support & admiration...and hope it gets worse to the point that a wedge germinates between Nurses/Nurses Union and the WA Labor Cabinent.
That again is Political Play 101.
If Labor was in opposition, don't be fooled, they too would be doing the exact same thing.
The only difference is, WA Labor is the political wing of what's left of the Unions. 
You can be sure industrial action would have happened before 2020.
With a conservative opposition they cannot rouse the troops. They can only show empathy, say to the Nursing Union officials that they don't support industrial action but they understand that may come to that....blah, blah, blah.

Pre 2017 a cabinet with a number of members who have statesmanship in their bones would have said this needs fixing, lets put aside egos, agendas and get the Govt, the opposition & stakeholders in Health into a room. No one leaves until we have agreed solutions with a timeline with an agreed review with agreed metrics, with agreed goals, specific goals & aims. 
Who ever was the Premier that installed that whether it had been Barnett or McGowan, they'd probably go onto greater things and if they fixed enough things maybe history would be so kind to gift them their own hallowed place in WA Political History & maybe a statue in King's Park or under the Barrack's Arch.

Not a snowflakes chance in hell.

We have the adversarial approach in full flight in Politics.
We have wars amongst players within the same parties...Labor, Liberal, Nationals, no exceptions.
Ambition has replaced public service & winning is the aim. Winning for you politcal career & your high paid board seat career post politics...the fiduciary duty is only owed to the self first, the party second (when it advances the self) and the electorate?
Well many have been in politics enought to tell the electorate to go to hell in such a way they either look forward to the trip or they thank their MP for the opportunity to go somewhere warmer.

The Hospital Crisis, the ever worsening Hospital Crisis was avoidable or at least it was possible years ago to ensure it never got half as bad as it is now, possible a quarter of how bad it is not. 
But, politics and winning was the only rules of engagement. Statesmanship & putting the people first was quietly escorted outside, taken behind the shed, shot 3 times and pushed into a shallow grave. It is as its always been, Politics...GAME ON.

Western Australia's Hospital/Nursing Crisis - How & When? Part 1

Its as if back in 2015/2016 the WA Labor Strategists sat down & worked out what to politically target & how...and got right on with it. Now maybe you can say we can't blame them, they were just doing their job (and thats actually quite fair) where there was a fault was the rules of engagement & what was the chief aim, the main goal. With 20/20 hindsight that looks like when the trouble began, but even then its rather unlikely. It's more likely that both sides of politics have been sharing political aims & goals, had similarly bad ideas their fiduciary duty & who they actually serve. So this approach is not total unique to the WA Labor Party but its solidly entrenched there & around 2015-16 is where we see the genesis of the problems we see & suffer in WA today.

Back in the Barnett Government days it's was a slowly lessening chance of winning the March 2017 State Election. But as any good or any bad politician will tell you, politics is one train ride  that can turn into win or wreck at any given moment if you're not awake and pulling the right levers.

For either side there needed to be a political weapon. An issue or two or many that could be weaponised & going by the immense size of the WA Labor Party Platform (still online) they were looking to cover as many bases as possible. Those that looked like not panning out, quietly push them aside, then to the back, let them simmer or go cold & raise the heat on the others.

The Hospital Crisis was one & the then WA Labor Opposition Spokesman for Health, Roger Cook, went for broke, scorched earth on the Barnett Coalition & turned the 1200 hours of Ambulance Ramping into more than a political football, he turned it into a scroched earth ground zero.
That & a very large number of other things swept them into power. Faults that the Liberal Coalition had & refused to attended to & things WA Labor leapt onto. Hospitals were just one.

In opposition Cook called 1200 hours a "crisis"
During the 1st 12 months of a WA Labor Government, the word crisis was dropped & that honeymoon period rolled on. History is a right cow & can be weaponised too. Any flak a government cops can be blocked by hoghlighting "and what did you do when you were in Government..." and pick out a usfel failure & face stab the pesky opposition. There's little else likely. Happens regardless of which side is new & who is opposition.

Sadly though, it was to be that the Ambulance Ramping did not improve. In fact its risen regularly.
1200 hours then...
1200 hours times 2
1200 hours times 3
1200 hours times 4
Now if its correct that we're at 6000 hours or greater its...
1200 hours times 5

But even when it doubled the Coaltion's 1200 hours suddenly the new Minister Roger Cook was not weaponising it, he was beginning to go to the next phase after "What did you do in government? You did x, y,z damage damage blah blah, discredit & dismiss"
That next phase is to slowly defuse the weapon. Either by fixing the problem or politically deweaponising it, claiming it was now due to external factors out of their control etc.

Roger Cook stopped the word crisis & when, in the case of Albany Health Campus (Albany, Mt Barker & Denmark Hospitals, servicing some 60,000 people) it was not crisis levels. When those Albany only had one spare bed one one day on the day of a public meeting the minister said it was working "at capacity"
He said there were 5 spare beds. There were, but not at Albany. They were spread over the 3 hospitals spread 50kms apart and yes the Royal Flying Doctor was still transporting serious patients to Perth.
I know, my father was one of them. They couldn't get him a bed in Albany. He went from Ambulance, to Emergency, to Ambulance to pland & Perth. He didn't get to a Albany Hospital bed. He was discharged within a week & we had to drive him 400km home.
Great Work Roger. 

COVID had the political advantage of wiping over the crisis or hiding the hospital systems rotting decay. It helped Roger Cook & WA Labor politically. For a time it helped defuse the political weapon they'd built. But only for a time & the clock was ticking & the gunpowder was growing. If they didn't find the solution they would be politically damaged by the politcal weapong they had leapt onto.

When it got beyond crisis, Roger Cook was kept as Deputy Premier, anointed as McGowan's replacement, given toursim (not energy, not Police, not Prisons) and Amber Jade Sanderson was made Health Minister as if we were to accept, new minister, all that is now is no longer bad, its now the reset normal good. Ahhh...no.

As Ambulance Hours ramped, it became evident the problem was big, was growing and was getting worse. A lack of midwives meant if you were pregnant & live in Geraldton or north, you needed to get to Perth a month or so before you were due. Many hospitals, no mid wives. Same for expectant mothers from the wheatbelt. Imagine that, your faimily is 200 to 2000+ kms away. You faced the prospect of giving birth without family or without very many of them.

The hopsital crisis had 3 politcal players involved and if we were ever to get to a solution in 2015 or any of the 7 years that have passed since then, what needed to happen was a complete de-politicisation of the issue.
Fully bi or tri-partisan to the point its one team vs the problem and one team only...because during political slanging matches it was yelled "we're all in this together"

WE  ALL IN THIS TOGETHER - WE WERE NOT.

Nurses, doctors & in fact all hospital staff, patients, ambulance workers, paramedics...we were all in it together. Well yes but what we were in is a political barrel of rotting BS that political parties are sitting high above unaffected & stirring it all with a big paddle whilst pointing & shouting at each other.

What should have happened is what WOULD have happened had we been entering a World War 2 type event. Parties by all means challenge each other with ideas but the Government, the Opposition & the Hospital system should have all walked into a room & stayed there until they all walked out with a solution.
A shared co-owned solution and a genuine understanding of what to do if the shared solution failed...namely share blame, sit down and work out the next solution.
That is de-politicise it & make it a Plan, Act, Review, Repeat approach that they all own.

Its a funny thing that all political parties have thrown that approach in the bin in favour of stabby grubby politics, identity politics, make the others bad guys & win at all costs.
The proper approach I'm pointing to is summed up simple with one word.

STATESMANSHIP.