NSW Parliament 2010 - Sitting 1 in review

With the NSW Parliament resuming this week with a new Premier and a re-jigged Cabinet people could have been worried that there might have been a change in the way the Parliament behaves.  They need not have worried! If consistency is a significant benchmark of how a Government, or for that matter, an Opposition performs, both sides did very well. 

It is true that Kristina Keneally works the crowd well – media opportunities that her predecessor, Nathan Rees would have failed to make an impact with even though he threw everything into it, have been masterfully managed by Premier Keneally.  Under the glare of the Parliamentary spotlights, Ms Keneally took to the stage in the latest episode of the longest running theatre production in Australia – “Question Time”. 

The critics have given mixed reviews including the predictable commentary on the Premiers attire.  In that regard she apparently did well.  The rest of the show seemed to draw heavily from old scripts with the main theme being allegations by the Opposition of Government incompetence.  David Campbell, now sporting the addition of Roads to his Ministerial titles certainly helped the Opposition.  His attack on the media for having apparently illegally obtained and then published details of the new Transport Blueprint was great theatre, a real bombshell; which unfortunately for the Minister and Government blew up in their own camp when it was revealed his information was wrong.  An embarrassment that would have seen a lesser performer stumble and freeze.  The masterful improvisation must be commended though it was beneficial that an off stage player, the online consultation website, Bang the Table, was there to take most of the blame.

This unusual mistake from the Minister lead to some improvised lines by the Premier in his support.  Performing to a gallery audience including visiting dignitaries from Vietnam and Bangladesh, the Premier’s defence initiated a raucous response and verbal exchanges across the stage leading to the need for the Speaker to rise and admonish the members for of all things – “unparliamentary behaviour”!  This term always causes some amusement for anyone who has been an observer of parliamentary behaviour.  

The first sitting week of 2010 scored well for consistency – unfortunately, that may be the best that can be said.

O'Farrell out / Premier gives more of same

So last week the Opposition Leader, Barry O'Farrell, was ejected from the Legislative Assembly for 24 hours for failing to comply with the direction of the Speaker, Richard Torbay.

Barry had asked a question which on face value was very important. It related to why the Government had removed the power of the Ombudsman to investigate matters relating to failures of the states' child protection system. As Mr O'Farrell later said, if you are going to be thrown out, then there could be no more important issue to be thrown out over.

Did Barry intend to be thrown out? Was it pre-planned? A stunt? Maybe. One thing for certain, Torbay was left with no other option with such a flagrant challenge to and disregard for the authority of the Speaker.

But let's not exonerate entirely the Premier. Premier Rees had the opportunity to deal with the question in a direct and appropriate manner - he chose to ignore the basis of the question and reply in the typical manner of an attack against the Opposition on their previous policies and lack of support for DOCs. This may be true, but it would be nice to see at least now and then, the Government, be magnanimous in it's use of power, by directly and professionally answering a question. This question would have been a good chance - and a more balanced response from Nathan Rees would have done him credit. He missed the chance.

Question Time

Nathan Rees has taken over as Premier of NSW at a very difficult time.  I have always thought that he was likely to rise to a senior position and quite possibly Premier, but not in the timeframe that happened.  Who would have predicted the fall of Iemma and Costa as well as the departure of John Watkins?  As well as having to deal with the problems and perceptions of such a long encumbancy, Nathan Rees also has to deal with the impact of the international financial meltdown.  That statement is not meant to excuse the Government for problems of their own making - it merely recognises that Rees will have a harder time correcting the mismanagement of the past Labor years.

The State Labor Government had become arrogant and seemingly out of touch with most of NSW. They had run down the state, particularly with some stupid policies of the Carr era, including Michael Egan's "brilliant" vendor tax on investment properties that meant that investors were hit at every opportunity.  This of course lead to an exodus of capital investment in housing from NSW to Victoria and Queensland in-particular - and we still haven't recovered!

It's interesting to see the members of Parliament in action and to get to know many of them personally. Generally they are like any mix of people, most of them very decent and nice people with some standouts for good and bad on both sides.  While they may well be nice people as individuals it is revealing to watch both Government and Opposition as they perform as a collective, the personality and culture of the Whole.  

I have noted quite flippantly that there seems to be a happy balance in the House, particularly demonstrated by Question Time.  The Opposition ask their questions knowing that they won't get a reasonable answer and that the opportunity will be used to attack them.  The Opposition appear to be masochists in this role balanced perfectly by the sadists and bullies of the Government.  Could this be fixed? Absolutely - start Question Time 1/2 hour earlier and use that 1/2 hour to allow for Ministerial Statements.  The rest of QT should be used only by the non-Government members with time limits (5 mins) on answers unless the Opposition agree to an extension.  We would then see QT being used to hold the Government to account and we would hopefully see more appropriate and respectful use of this time, maybe even improving the way in which parliamentarians are viewed by the public!

This of course has been going on for a long time, it's not unique to this Parliament.  The question is however is this the best way of running our democratic state or can we do much better?  As the Parliament is based on the Westminster system and makes seemingly very few concessions to modern decision making practice, I can only say yes, we could do much better.  These changes should include significant changes to not only the operation of the Parliament but also to the make up of the parliament.  

It was somewhat heartening to see earlier this year former premier Bob Carr raising this issue for debate.  He rightly pointed out that there have been significant changes in the State/Commonwealth relationship since Federation.  Some of these include shifts in responsibility away from the states in areas including health, education, industrial relations and taxation.  Bob Carr suggested reducing the number of Parliamentarians significantly and while there would be a need to address how elected representation was maintained, I think that it is something that should be explored.   The shape and function of the State is something that is achievable by the desire of the state and is much more likely to be achieved than other grander visions such as the removal of states.