A prime example of the inflexibility of the Westminster system of Government failing the people it is designed to serve.

The inflexibility of the Westminster political system can be as harmful as the laxity of the US system!

Criticism of The shortcomings of the "lobbyist infested" USA political system is a favourite past time in here in Australia and also in Brittan.

It is correctly suggested that Presidents in the USA system of government are hostage to the the lobbying influence of political donors to their party and political campaign, as are most members of the Congress and Senate on both sides of the politics. In fact most members of the Congress and Senate vote based on the lobby pressure of their backers rather than their support or opposition to Presidents and their policy initiatives. Therefore it is quite common in the USA for members to cross the floor

The Westminster system of majority rule in the lower house on the surface does give Prime Ministers more flexibility than their US counterparts, saving the problems of getting through the Senate.

But, there is ONE major aspect of the US political system which encourages good policy initiatives and easier path to implementation, which the inflexibility of the Westminster system on the other hand prevents!

The President in the US system has the flexibility to choose his/her own Cabinet members from all walks of life without having to play the vicious "factions games" of the Westminster system. Of course I am not suggesting that the usual backroom political maneuvering does not take place in the process; because it definitely does! The negotiations in the selection process however take place on a much more broader base than just amongst the factional powerbrokers and the elected members belonging to the different factions as is the case in our system in Australia.

In the USA, the members of the Administration do not even have to be elected members of the Congress or Senate (and if they are at the time of being selected they will have to resign their parliamentary seats).

However, much more importantly, and in fact impressively, and that is the main point of my blog, they do not even necessarily have to be members of the President's own Party! Examples are the former Republican Senator William Cohen who was the Defence Secretary in Clinton's Administration from 1997 till January 2001 (When Bush was sworn in) and most recently President Obama's retention of Bush Administration's Defence Secretory William Gate in his position in the new Obama administration.

And here's my point: Our system of parliamentary majority and the requirement for all Cabinet Ministers to be an elected member of one of the two Houses of the Parliament, and the subsequent factional based selection of Cabinet members can easily prevent and or stifle policy initiatives and/or implementation.

The biggest example in my argument is the CASE FOR NOEL PEARSON to be given the portfolio of Aboriginal Affairs, i.e. become the FEDERAL MINISTER FOR ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS on a permanent basis regardless of the Government in power!

As we all know, this is an impossible suggestion. Noel Pearson is not a member of any of the Parties represented in either House and even if he was he would not toe the party line and probably cross the floor all the time!

But does Noel Pearson qualify for this position? Yes

Does Noel Pearson have the track record of policy implementation in some of the most disadvantaged communities in Australia? Yes

Have successive Governments allocated and subsequently wasted billions of dollars of taxpayer money and numerous policy initiatives in this area? Yes

Noel Pearson has just released his selected writings: "Up from the Mission, selected Writings", in my view a must read for all interested on practical solutions to the Aboriginal issues.

In his excellent review of the book on August 1 issue of SMH, Michael Sexton writes "Pearson identifies alcohol and drugs as the most direct causes (of the Aborigines' social plight) but singles out the underlying problem of what he calls the concept of passive welfare, the long term acceptance of government fund without expectation of the situation changing"

Pearson believes the appalling situation in education and health in Aboriginal communities can not be solved with legislation and funding alone, and requires the much harder "Behavioural Change". He stresses the importance of "Social Order" for Aboriginal communities, something that civil libertarians misunderstand in his view. His record in cape York peninsula speaks the practicality of his views, although some Aboriginal identities have accused him and his initiatives as too harsh on aboriginals.

Most significantly, Pearson believes the debate on the future of Aborigines stifled by the "tribalism of Australian politics and cultural life". No wonder he would never make it as a team player in the comp ex world of factional play in the Westminster system!