I got the idea for this discussion from
columnist Virginia Trioli's recent article
in the Weekly Review Magazine in which she
writes that -

"I think Australia is ready for a President.
In fact, I think we've been ready for one for
quite a while."

She says that "The advent of so-called Presidential-style
politics in this country is no coincidence, nor is it
a media confection. Australians, like voters around the
world, have become increasingly disenchanted with
political parties and often mediocre talent gathered
within. Membership has collapsed, political professionals
have taken over, party platforms have completely lost
their meaning and relevance. "

"Voters appear to pay scant attention to the position of a
party and instead focus all their hopes on one person,
one leader."

Trioli reminds us that the leader is supposed to
be simply representative of the party, one person elected
by the group to serve at the pleasure of the party ...
Except Trioli points out - that's not how it has played
out at all, at least not since John Howard's time.

And since then as we've seen all PMs have followed Howard's
lead.

Trioli says, "So, why don't we abandon the pretence that
we vote for parties and instead elevate the one
person we think might actually have a vision for the
country?"

She's right. If our leaders are going to keep behaving
like "one-person bands," wouldn't (shouldn't) we as Trioli
says -" at least
like a direct say in who sings the song?"

Your opinions please.

@threadstarter

one thing i know, we do not have to be tied to the royalty

it is so dated

mother england sent us so many criminals and the physically and mentally retarded
such genes are still lurking quietly in our midst
one of such genes is not having the ability to write simply .. hhh :)

no wonder we have so many social issues... the highest per capita compared to any first world countries

I'm not sure switching to a President is that easy or that it will improve anything. People had high hopes Obama would change the world. Love him or loath him, he hasn't delivered much other than alienating most of the American population. He was also completely stymied by a hostile opposition which held the majority.

I'm also at a loss to see who in Australia might be charismatic enough to inspire the people into accepting whatever it takes to grow the economy, reduce the debt, and protect our borders. (Obama's failure to protect the border is his biggest failing) People want security and hope for a positive future.

Also, a three year term is flawed as it generally doesn't provide enough time to achieve much without ruffling feathers and then getting punished at the next election.

I'd be happy with an Enlightened monarch or a benevolent dictator running things. But whoever, in whatever position is our Leader, at some point in time we have to give them a chance to perform and also accept that we cannot all get what we want.

People need to become less politically self interested and more willing to sacrifice/accept what's best for the greater good. Like that is ever going to happen.

I threw in this topic for discussion not
because I want this to be a proxy for a
reheated Republican debate but because I'm
starting like Virginia Trioli to genuinely
believe it's time for Australia as Trioli
points out "to rethink our
political system and looking at the dysfuntional
mess our Federal Parliament has become, I can see
more and more compelling arguments for a change
to a presidency, with all the powers of one
popularly elected leader but with the accountability
of a bicameral house of representatives."

Long overdue i would say. The question needs to be asked at the next election. Yes or No. Then work out what sort of republic we need to create.
Howard muddied the water that badly with his plebiscite and utter b/s.
Republic of AU.

It doesn't look like this discussion is going
to take off so I'd like to thank those who did
find the time to contribute.

I look forward to finding another topic that we
can all debate in the future.

Enjoy your day,

At present the prime minister must select his cabinet from members of parliament. There may be no member with experience or knowledge of the particular area that cabinet deals with. With a presidential system where heads of cabinet can be chosen on the basis of competence we may get better heads of the the cabinet departments.

We also need no ceremonial head of government. On important occasions the president will represent us. On less important ceremonial occasions the president can delegate a representative.

At present we are not sure who will be head of government when we elect a party to govern. The party may have the greatest number of seats, but the party head may not have won his or her seat.

With a president there will be no leadership spills. However, if the president behaves wrongly impeachment mechanisms can be set up to remove the president.

At present parliament cannot be a check on the executive as the executive controls parliament. With an elected president we would have the separate executive, legislative and judicial branches of government envisioned by Montesquieu.

I think having a president is a good idea. However, if it is a good idea that may be a reason Australia is not ready for it.

Dear 579,

It looks like our posts passed each other.
Thanks for coming into a discussion that's
not doing too well. As far as Mr Howard is
concerned - As Virginia Trioli pointed out -
"that's when you started to see a PM open,
launch, announce and be associated with
virtually everything a government did. A PM
who did more media interviews, more talkback
radio than any other before or since;
a PM who overshadowed all ministers and all
portfolios: a PM who was asked and gave his
opinion on virtually any topic on any day ..."

And according to Trioli "all PMs since have
followed his lead. Since then, the leader of the
Party has assumed much greater authority and
stature than even the party rooms have
completely understood."

Kevin Rudd, believed his authority came directly
from the people (President like) - and as we know
from what he states on television and elsewhere,
Tony Abbott seems to believe something similar.

So, as Trioli suggests, "why not abandon the pretence
that we vote for parties and instead elevate the one
impressive person we thin might actually have a
vision for the country?"

Of course that person will as Trioli points out -
come from and within a political party but as
she also adds - " the United States style of creating
government from a hand-selected group of specialised,
often civilian, individuals to take on policy
portfolios would be enormously attractive to an
electorate fed up with underachievers and party hacks."

I agree with Trioli when she tells us that - "large
elements in the electorate yearn for the larger than
life figure who can cut through party constraints and
lead with conviction."

Who that figure is we have yet to find out - but at least
it is worth thinking about.

Dear David F.,

Thank You for coming into this discussion.
You have stated the arguments for a
Presiency so well. Much better than I could
have done. And as I stated earlier - it really
is something that Australia needs to think about.
Surely as a country we should be mature enough
to at least have a discussion on the topic.
Especially if our Prime Ministers continue to
behave like Presidents.

What a total waste of money,

Please tell me one nation that has a President that does not have, one of the big 5 problems? That is major Violence (France and USA)major poverty (at least half the world)civil war (at least a tenth of the world)Lack of education (South America, Africa)lack of a health system.

Yet, for all its problems the Westminster system has these problems under control (Canada, NZ, Australia etc)

Would us having a president, give us better trade terms? NO, would it give us better hospitals? No, Would it give us better control, stop civil wars, give us better education? NO NO NO.

WHEN and only when we have no homeless in Australia, zero crime, max employment. The best education standards in the world, then and only then, you can waste billions on becoming a republic.

In 1999, the ATO estimated it would cost 2.5 billion to change to a republic (so that means at least 10 billion as any government department cant count) The cost to change our currency, all stationary, all high court documents, all election material, all government and semi government bodies, coat of arms, our constitution , the list is endless

Talk about pissing money up against the wall for nothing.

There is another solution to the problem of the instability of the Prime Ministership.

That is: Let's get rid of the position altogether!

It's been a long time since I've read the constitution, but if I remember correctly it doesn't mention specifically the office of Prime Minister. It is only by convention that we have one, not a constitutional requirement. So it should be possible to remove it without to much bother.

So how does the country run without a PM?
Well, instead of having the PM give statements about any and everything: if the matter is a question for the executive, then cabinet minister responsible for the appropriate department makes comments/deals with it. Or, if the subject matter refers to a internal party matter then a party spokesperson makes the comment. In the case of wining and dining dignitaries from foreign governments then the Govern General handles it or the appropriate minister.

At the end of the day, as it is at the moment, the job of PM is not really a job at all-- they don't really do anything. So let's just give up this charade and get rid of it. It would save us taxpayers a lot of money if we abolish this office.

I think you missed my point Foxy. I wasn't aiming to spout a Republican viewpoint (as an expat American I can honestly say I never voted Republican in my life).

What I was trying to point out is that even with a charismatic leader with the best ideas and intentions, the whole system can be stymied by the opposition. One problem with all democratic government is if they win by a slight majority you still have almost 50% of the population unhappy, unforgiving and uncooperative.

It doesn't if the Leader is called President or Prime Minister if the people aren't willing to follow. If the Leader's idea of what's best runs against the grain of the general populace, (in Obama's case border protection) once he looses their faith in him/her he no longer has their support.

We are seriously lacking any dynamic charismatic visionary politicians in this country.

I hope you are still following this thread Foxy.

@foxy

the fact that no many make any posts does not mean the topic is irrelevant

it just means australians do not like to deal with the elepbant in the room

take the thread on 'Arson in our Burning Continent'
this is as real as real can be
fellow citizens are burnt alive and hundreds of million destroyed
but we like to say it is because of electrical fires or lightnings

those arsonists who were caught only get 10 years at most and in all cases, they were allowed parole after a couple of years

that foxy, is the problem with australia

Wow! So many great arguments are now finally
coming forward. Thank You. You've all raised
some very valid points.

I have to admit that
I agree the Presidency suggestion is not perfect -
but I suspect very few political systems are perfect -
however what does appeal to me about the Presidency
is that it allows a hand-selected group of
specialised, (often civilian) individuals to take on
policy portfolios instead of the usual promotions of
party hacks. You'd at least get experts who know what
they're talking about (hopefully). Of course there's
also the problem of "money talks," that's associated
with the American style of government - the costs
involved in running for office are enormous and are
usually funded and supported by vested interests -
although that's starting to be the case in our system
as well to a certain extent.

Yes . It is necessary to understand the difference between a non - executive president , which was proposed at the 1999 referendum , and an executive president .

A non - executive president would replace the Queen [ and her local representative , the Governor General ] . This type of president would perform the same functions and exercise the same powers which are now performed and exercised by the Governor General . S/he could still , however , be called the "Governor General or simply the "Head of State . "

Most significantly , the Governor General would not be appointed by the Queen [ the Queen would be removed from the Constitution ] . Either the president would be appointed by Parliament or at an election by the voters . S/he would be head of state [ in place of the Queen ] However , s/he would NOT be head of government [ like the Prime Minister ] . There would still be a Prime Minister .

An executive president would be similar to President Obama , in that the president would exercise real powers , such as proposing to the Parliament or Congress [ in the USA ] the making of laws , including taxing laws . Parliament would still have to pass the proposed laws . In certain circumstances , the president might be able to declare war , though the latter power is disputed by the US Congress .

This type of president would combine the roles of head of state and head of government . This was not proposed in 1999 and is not now proposed by the Republican Movement .

In the American system there is not the rigid party discipline that there is in both Labor and Libs in Australia. A member of Congress is freer to consider her or his conscience, the wishes of constituents, the good of the country and the world than her or his counterpart in Australia. Therefore interests contribute to the campaigns of individual candidates in the US and to the party in Australia.

This means that politicians are for sale on a retail basis in the US and in Australia one buys pollies wholesale.

Wholesale is cheaper.

Would it still be necessary to have a PM. Could bills be posted and then introduced into the chamber by the speaker for debate and formation before going to the senate for final, legal + amendments. Then signed off by the President.

Elect a President and you get a politician !

Having done that, executive or non-Executive, you have generated a
second power centre.
That is a formula for chaos.
You cannot elect a politician and call him Gov General or President
without laying down trouble for the future.

Where Governors and Governors-General are always Australians I cannot see any advantage and a heck of a lot of extra expense in changing the system that is NOT broken.

There are many other priorities for which money is never available, such as replacing those single lane bridges on Highway 1.

I think Tony would make a great first president of Oz.

Not so sure you would like it Foxy.

On the other hand I would definitely throw up if we had the disgusting Rudd, or the even worse Turnbull.

Do give serious thought to the idea. Imagine how disgusting it would be like the yanks with a raving ratbag like Obama in the post.

What appeals to me about the Presidential system
is the fact that there's a stronger separation
of powers between the Executive and the Legislative.
In the Presidential system the Executive and the
Legislative are two separate bodies. The Legislative
being the main body for creating policy whereas the
Executive is the main body for implementing that polcy.

I find it a bit baffling that under our system we have
committees and inquiries - but these are limited by
what the majority party will allow them to inquire into -
protecting the Executive. Also these Committees often
contain members of the Executive cabinet - thereby
making checks and balances rather difficult.

This poor separation of powers is one of the biggest
problems of a parliamentary system.

579: just a small note, when you say "Could bills be posted and then introduced into the chamber by the speaker for debate and formation before going to the senate for final, legal + amendments. Then signed off by the President."
Do you realise that with the current system bills can be introduced in either house (except for a bill of supply which can only be introduced in the lower house)?
With a president (which personally I'm not yet convinced is better then what we have now) would you still allow the Senate to introduce bills?

By-the-way, where you question if we still need a PM under a presidential system: as I've said in a previous post, we don't even need a PM at-the-moment with the current system. If we got rid of the office of PM then politicians and especially the media could concentrate on issues that actually matter. Also, it should cost us taxpayers less since we eliminate a whole administrative department (in addition we save a little bit extra since we don't pay the PM's juicy salary package and pension).

Foxy, as a republican I am naturally in favor of sending the reprobates from Britain along with their representative the GG, packing.
I believe the position of President, should be an elected one, but I see it more or less as a ceremonial roll, with very limited powers. More or less. limiting the presidential powers to opening school fetes, and giving meritorious awards to resourceful Woodchucks. I would favor the election of a non political person, thus excluding ex-polititions and radio shock jocks, like a certain former PM, like Little Johnny Howard, and Al Jones, and Archy Pell, Archy's not a former PM, or a shock jock, just shocking, but anyway I just don't like Archy! But, not excluding former Aussie cricket captains, preferably winning ones, and I would not allow political parties to "nominate" candidates, even if they were a former Aussie cricket captain, even a winning one. I may even go as far as allowing the nomination of non-people, a much loved former, (naturally winning, no one wants to back a looser) racehorse, one springs to mind. Possibly to avoid any hint of political controversy the nomination of an inanimate, but prestigious, iconic object for president could be in order, the Big Banana at Coffs Harbour does spring to mind, winning in a close vote over the Big Pineapple from the Sunshine Coast, not a hint of politics in that one. How am I going on this? If need be, I'll get back to you later with more brilliance on the subject. Cheers for now.

No bill introduction in the senate, touch up and legalities only.
No more party politics, no more question time. no more PM.

I say the house of reps would function far better than the bun-fight we have now. Elected members would have a far better interest in their electorates. All members would have a say. All debate would be public. No more block voting. All votes are conscience votes. No more party room deals. No more sponsor support for legislation. All candidates put forward why they should be elected, with equal funding for advertising.

Public and businesses invited to talk in the house on their particular concerns.
Armed forces invited to put their wants; to the members and public, years in advance.
All settled legislation enacted with 12 months delay, so appropriate funding can be identified and accounted for. ETC.

Do grow up a bit 579.

A parliament of independents, which is really what you are advocating could never get a single worthwhile thing done. Hell, can you imagine this lot on here ever making a workable decision, if we all formed a government/.

Personally I am a fan of a single house, as in Queensland. The party in power can implement it's policies. If they are bad policies they will be chucked out. The current national system, where the "nonrepresentative swill" as one Labor PM referred to the senate, are wagging the dog, but the dog is being blamed, is as useless as a bunch of independents.

President elected by all of Australia voters, for 6 year terms. With equal funding. President can put forward bills for discussion and formation through the speaker. No limit of terms served by the president if elected.

Speaker to be second choice of voters for president. No limit of terms if elected. Speaker is also second in charge, for emergencies.
All members are elected within their own electorate, for 4 year terms All members are equal. No need for party politics. No limit of terms served by members if elected.

President to have executive powers in times of emergency, disaster and war.
All port folios to be filled with selected persons from the public, answerable to the house

and....

That still doesn't give a good enough reason to spend billions on changing our Westminster system. Look at every other republic, and their problems are far worse than ours.

You can't fix a Swiss watch with a hammer.

Don't fix something that is not broken

kirby483 - Don't fix something that is not broken

Our Westminster system is broken. It was damaged when the first past the post voting system came in. Until we get rid of the potential for a fly by night party with 3% of the voted getting a Senate seat, we have a big problem that needs fixing.

Forget the President idea; introduce 4 year terms, and election reforms.

Imagine the brouhaha and cost of a presidential style election. An advertising windfall to the media and a speculative gossip fest for the twits of the Twiterati and the social commentators on the ABC.

Over-paid Jones: "This is Q&A bringing you the ABC's umpteenth show on the Presidential Campaign Tonight yet again, we have Miriam 'The TIT' as an expert. Miriam knows SFA about the subject but she can be counted upon to roll her eyes, make faces and ejaculate "Tit!" on cue, drawing appreciative applause from the frivolous, dumbed-down TV audience".

Do I detect the Abbott worshippers don’t like the idea of a change away from party politics, they want to slide around in the cesspool, What makes party politics the norm, let alone block voting.

kirby483 : "Don't fix something that is not broken"

The point is that the system is broken. We have now degenerated to the state where most of the time the media is concentrating just on the popularity of the current PM and not other issues. And we the voters are as much to blame as the media since, as the OP points out when quoting, "Voters appear to pay scant attention to the position of party and instead focus all their hopes on one person, one leader."

Personally I believe that we should not be furthering this current infatuation with leadership and a single individual. Instead we should go the other way and encourage the idea of teamwork with specialisation. That is, we should embrace the system we currently have: an executive run collectively by a by group of people who are each specialised within portfolios-- ie, the Cabinet. To further support the idea of heading the executive by a cabinet we should abolish the office of the PM.

We don't need a PM, it is that simple! We can manage perfectly fine with just cabinet ministers. eg: I've just watched Abbot doing a press releasre/interview regarding the deployment of troops to Iraq. The details/info he gave could have been done just as well been delievered by the ministers for foreign affairs and defence.

579

I thought you would not be over the champagne popping over the last few weeks due to Abbott's departure. What happened?

Our Prime ministers have been quite a
"licorice all sorts" kind of bunch. They've
suffered from an array of physical deformities,
uttered some "colourful" phrases and some of
them have even had somewhat of a liking for
debauched behaviour. We've had - "Pig Iron Bob,"
(Menzies), "Silver Bodgie," (Hawke),
"The Lizard of Oz," (Keating),
"Lying Rodent," (Howard),
and "The Mad Monk," (Abbott), to name just a few.

Miriam Margoles's response to an audience question
was the shortest and by far the most memorable on
"Q and A," last night. She's the call-a-spade-a-spade
actress and her five word summation resulted in applause
from the eclectic mix that made up the audience.

"I think he's a tit," she said.

Americans would have used the word - "boob."
Which means a fool or an idiot.

It could have been worse. Much worse.
Ask Julia Gillard.

Politics in AU is a game of ping pong, we need to get away from the brits; and stand alone.

Out style is Flawed in to many ways to be any good. AU can devise its own form of politics with out party politics.

Electing a president does not have to be expensive. That is The American system which is ridiculous. Our electoral boundaries elect their own representative from interested persons doing away with lib or labor seats, it is not necessary to have two sides in the house. All representatives are self employed, and would have a far greater interest in their electorate than now.

Politics would be put back in the hands of the voting public, and have much more sway when it came to votes on issues. Reps; would know the feelings of the public in their own electorate about issues and the rep would vote accordingly. Win or lose the public would know they tried in their interest. Vote Turnbull 1.

Interesting thoughts and a good mix of opinions.

Many seem to feel that "if it ain't broke don't
fix it." That it will cost a lot to fix it.

While others can see positive results
in fixing it. Namely that we need an Australian
President who can represent our country's interests
alone - without a conflict of interest.

Who can see that the
highest office in the land should not be given to a
birth-appointed monarch - it should be an achievement
based on merit. Who can see
that every Australian should be given
the opportunity to aspire to the "top job."
That a ruling monarch is so last century.

Many Australians
pride themselves as being egalitarian and independent
and these people see that the country
should have a symbol that accurately represents Australian
values and does not continue to promote the elitism that is
the monarchist system.

I suspect that we shall make changes inevitably.
When and if we are all ready to make those changes.

I laughed out loud when I
read a reader's comments on the web recently - who summed
up the views of Australians on politicians.

His summation
stated that Australians distrust politicians. They don't elect
great leaders who would heal their wounds and lead them to
prosperity. Instead they knowingly elect a bunch of
"bastards" (not slur intended - simply politically
speaking) that are slightly lesser "bastards" than the other
lot and they don't trust them enough for 4 years.
3 is enough.

Just letting you guys know that I'm taking a short
break (for personal reasons) from the forum.
Thanks again to everyone who contributed to this
discussion and I'll see you all when I get back.

Have a nice day!

" Instead they knowingly elect a bunch of "bastards"

As a desperate student who needed several jobs I always worked for the Electoral Office on polling day. Later I have often done the sausage sales. So I reckon I have seen it all.

I can confirm that with maybe a few exceptions - and they are probably only the occasional over-enthusiastic, overbearing scrutineers of some parties - the people who turn out for the polls are positive, optimistic and modest in what they require of those who would represent them.

The public has become exasperated with what 'Party' Government in lieu of representative government and the hordes of uniquely selfish career politicians who bounce between very narrow rails. Now long gone after doing in Don's Party (but still riding the same wagon), Natasha Stott Despoya is a good example of the self-important, stuffed-shirt, ideas-vacuum, career politician. There are many more, regrettably.

Lets take a look at the facts folks.

We're told by quite a few commentators that -

Tony Abbott and his party won office in 2013
not as a result of their popularity, but due to
the immense hostility towards the previous Labor
government.

Its also pointed out that -

The massive electoral swings in
Queensland and Victoria plus the current leadership
instability in Canberra, are all signs of the level
of disenchantment that currently exists in our
political system.

We're told that -this unprecedented volatility is
also reflected in the growing proportion of voters
casting their ballots for independents and single-issue
parties, as a means of expressing their disgust
with the entire political establishment.

It's pointed out that
there has also been an increase in recent years of
informal or spoilt ballots - instances where voters
either mistakenly or intentionally submit a ballot
that is blank or improperly filled in, which can't
be counted in the final tally.

Long-time political insider and commentator
Paula Matthewson has made an interesting observation
regarding our system of compulsory voting.
She states that if we moved to a voluntary system,
with the level of disenchantment and disengaged
voters we have now, no one would vote.

I'm not sure about that - I tend to
agree with the argument that most Australian
are quite comfortable with the current electoral
process and would be suspicious of efforts to
change it. That most Australians
do trust the electoral system (more than they
trust their politicians).

The current system also
protects marginalised groups. If we look at the
international experience - in non-compulsory voting
systems - the people who don't vote are the poor and
disenfranchised and those are exactly the people
that should be voting.

Therefore it's not surprising
that the old adage of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it,"
is something that will probably remain with us
for sometime yet.

Beach,
No doubt you never seen the cowardly founder of the Liberal Party Sir Robert Menzies, better known as 'Pig Iron' Bob to his detractors. There never was a more conceited, elitist, stuffed-shirt politician than dear old Bob in my time! Bob would make the Demo lady look like a school girl on the score of elitism.

Referring to the Queen of England "I did but see her passing by, and yet I love her till I die." Even the Queen was embarrassed! Ans as for wanting to call the Australian Dollar "Royals" no joke, he did!

Paul1405,

I have never supported Menzies and have in the past given the same quote. I am not a member of any political party, just community volunteering.

You will have to refute or accept my arguments as they stand.

Dear Paul,

We need look no further that our current PM's
introduction of dames and knighthoods.
Taking us back to the "days of yore," no wonder
there's been leadership instability in Canberra
and massive electoral swings in Queensland and
Victoria.

Dear Paul,

As far as our politicians are concerned -
Peter Coleman makes the following astute observations:

"Whatever they may say, most of them do not go into
Parliament to bring about particular reforms; they go
in because they find the life irresistible. They want
to be in it all their lives. They enjoy its exhilarating
highs and take its miserable (and tedious) lows in their
stride. They face long years in the wilderness with
equanimity. They take for granted the slander of fools.
They also believe that the voters will get it right in
the end. Their day will come. They are politicians in the
way others are poets. They can't help themselves."

Yet Coleman also makes the point that not all of them
are like that. Peter Costello (his son in-law being
one) he names who did go into Parliament to make a
difference. The others Coleman claims fit into the
categories of "seat-warmers," "hacks," "careerists"
or at best - "adventurers."

I guess Coleman should know what he's talking about.
He has been a member of the Federal Parliament (1981-87),
and the New South Wales (1968 - 78). He is a writer/
journalist, and has been editor of "The Bulletin" and
"Quadrant." His many books include a study of the
intellectuals in the Cold War, "The Liberal Conspiracy:
The Congress for Cultural Freedom and the Struggle for
the Mind of Postwar Europe," and the autobiographical
"Memoirs of a Slow Learner."

Coleman was a foundation member of the Australian
Council for the Arts (1968 - 73) and Chairman of
the Australian Film and Television School (1971-73).
And as mentioned earlier, he is Peter Costello's
father-in-law. And, in my opinion, an awesome individual
whom I admire greatly.

Hi Foxy,

For all my lampooning etc of our polys on here. I must say over the many years of meeting with these guys, including PM's and State leaders, from all sides of politics, I have admiration for the vast majority of them. Most I have met have demonstrated a commitment to their calling and most try to do the right thing by those who elected them. I can speak for The Greens in NSW, and all are in my view very committed people, add to that a number of Liberal and Labor members who are just as dedicated as our mob. However can't always agree with their politics.

p/s There are exceptions, never met Eddie Obeid!

Dear Paul,

Thanks for that.

I've also met quite a few politicians of all persuasions
in my time due to my line of work. Nearly all of
them made a favourable impression. But then I suspect
meeting them in a working capacity - we all just simply got
on with what needed to be done. I can't recall any one of
them making a negative impression on me. Which I suppose
says a great deal.

I have consulted to John Woodley, Queensland Senator and a very good individual.