Peterson describes his brief time in the “public service rabbit hole” writing ministerial speeches for the Health Department.

There were whoops of joy in the office when the boss came in and said the section was under budget.

“Oh, so that’s good? You’ve saved money?”

“No, no,” her smile turned to ash as she gave me that pitying look I usually received when I asked a question. “It means training.”

Peterson then recounted attending a conference of dubious relevance, staying in premium accommodation with all expenses paid.

It’s more cringeworthy because it’s the Health Department. If a section can save money for whatever reason, surely it should be channelled into services?

The writer talks about the hierarchy, with the Prime Minister at the pinnacle, followed by his advisers, then ministers and their advisers.

Everyone is expected to be enthralled and active when the PM’s latest thought bubble floats into their personal orbit.

In the Health Department, that meant policy on the run, with websites and marketing materials to promote it.

Peterson wraps up with: “The next time I spend eight hours waiting in emergency, I will be thinking of unused speeches, cancelled events and weeks of wasted organisation and research. I will be thinking of expensive television advertising campaigns and T-shirts and golf balls with little slogans. I will be thinking of websites and a consultation process driven by photography. I will be thinking of training.”

It was a well-written article, entertaining and insightful.

This post is to welcome reforms to the laws of succession proposed by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Mr Brown has suggested equal opportunities for women heirs and Catholics.

I’m ambivalent about the first issue, but strongly believe Catholics should be allowed to marry into the Royal Family, be in the line of succession and inherit the throne.

As it currently stands, a royal may marry a Jew, Muslim or a Methodist and retain their succession rights, but not if they marry a Catholic.

The Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, said: “I do feel it is discriminatory, no doubt about it. The heir to the throne can marry anyone he likes – a Jew, a Hottentot, a Muslim – but not a Roman Catholic.”

But he doesn’t want to “make a fuss”.

I’m ambivalent about women heirs because it has always been that way and we’re talking about a traditional system.

Women are perfectly able to rule, of course, as two Elizabeths and Victoria have shown. Fate decreed they would rule. They are not excluded.

Discriminating against Catholics is a throwback to the 1600s. It was unjustifiable then and is unacceptable today.

Indeed, there is a strong argument under Jacobite principles that today’s monarch is not the true Queen.

Changing the laws of succession apparently requires consent from dozens of Commonwealth countries.

I can’t see any objecting, certainly not Australia.

Translated from bureaucratic language that means political death.

It’s very hard to fathom why Malcolm Turnbull wants to delay millions of Australians receiving a timely handout from the government through its economic stimulus package.

I concede a personal interest in this; my family stands to receive about $5000.

Putting that interest aside, I actually think the package has some merit. I was less convinced about the December handout, because of the timing and the lack of an overall strategy.

This time there are more beneficiaries and a greater emphasis on infrastructure.

The GST is a consumption tax, which means the Federal and State Governments rely on people spending money to rake in tax revenue.

To put it bluntly, the states are stuffed if people aren’t spending. That has implications for schools, hospitals, police and other services.

Even if only two thirds of the $42 billion package gets spent, that promises to return $2.8 billion to governments in the form of tax.

Company tax revenue should also climb if the spending helps to maintain profit levels.

The Opposition has a legitimate role to scrutinise and criticise the package. I don’t think there’s enough emphasis on health, for example.

However, Turnbull’s ploy to block legislation in the Senate appears to be reckless and politically dumb.

The cartoon by Peter Broelman says it all.

I’m not making this up and it’s not April Fool’s Day.

The Courier Mail reports that Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has hatched a $44.2 million plan to control what we read online.

Internet censorship will involve two tiers – one level of mandatory filtering for all Australians and an optional level that will provide a “clean feed”, censoring adult material.

“We are talking about mandatory blocking, where possible, of illegal material,” the Minister told a Senate Estimates Committee.

I find this very disturbing. I don’t know the best solution to protect children from pornography and predators, but I do know government filtering isn’t the way to go.

The website No Clean Feed explains what is proposed and how to oppose it.

The headline is unbelievably: “Councils oppose corruption”. Wow! Do they really?

It’s from the Local Government Association of South Australia. It would be more newsworthy, of course, if they supported corruption.

The introduction is nonsenical:

SA’s Local Government Association has expressed confidence in SA’s Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) but has asked the State Government for its views.

I think it’s about whether there should be an independent crime commission in South Australia.

It ends with:

“We have neither supported nor opposed an ICAC for South Australia. Ultimately that is not a decision for us – it’s one for State Government.”

So why did they bother to issue a media release at all? They’re against corruption, the support the current mechanisms and don’t have a view on forming an independent commission!

We’ve got four children, so unless I’ve missed something in the fine print we’ll get $4000.

I had to research a little to find the income threshold, in case we missed out on that score.

According to The Australian, the money is for families earning up to $100,800 with one child; $111,000 with two children; and $122,000 with three or more.

We had a one-off high-income year in 2007-08 thanks to capital gains on shares and a company bonus, but we fit under the threshold for three or more children, so I guess we’re included.

I won’t start counting it though until it’s in the bank.

Although I will never complain about a cash windfall, I really question the government’s strategy.

People will most likely spend the money on Christmas presents, home improvements and holidays given the December timing before summer holidays.

Some people will probably spend more than they are given. The $3000 air-conditioning system that was out of reach last week is now affordable if the government gives you $2000.

We’ll pay some bills, pay our holiday (which was already booked), save some and spend the rest.

Labor believed the Howard Government wasted money allowing an ad-hoc uncoordinated system to develop whereby individual departments and agencies contracted their own services.

Labor is right in this this regard. While decision making at a local level should be permitted, the big picture issues such as architecture and development should be centralised and properly co-ordinated.

I can relate a personal experience of government departments with conflicting systems from a user perspective.

A couple of years ago I registered Juliet with the Family Assistance Office for online access to family tax benefits, Centrelink and childcare information.

All went smoothly and we were able to update our personal details as they changed. This was really handy while we lived at Porepunkah where the nearest Centrelink office was 70km away.

We used the web site less in Kalgoorlie.

Recently, I registered with the new Medicare online service. I accessed it today to change our address and bank account.

I then visited the Family Assistance web site to do the same and found they had changed their system.

Logging in was no problem. I was asked to provide five secret questions and answers, that’s okay.

Then to change details I was told to upgrade to a higher level. Medicare had the same requirement but made it simple by adding some secret questions.

Family Assistance required five secret questions and answers just to access the summary page. To actually do anything needed further proof of identity by completing a complicated questionnaire.

They wanted to know when we received our last payment, how much it was and which account it was paid to.

I keep pretty good records, but I hazard very few people in Australia would have that information at their fingertips and most would not be able to easily obtain it.

The request was overkill and made Family Assistance appear wrongly named, try Family Annoyance.

My point is that Medicare used a simpler method to establish the same credentials to access similarly private information. There should be consistency in what government agencies and departments require.

I’ll go a step further. There should be a one-stop shop for online government services. Users should be able to login to a personal start page with their tax file number or Medicare number.

After proving their identity they should be able to access every government service from a single portal.

It’s another example of indecision and lack of leadership. Add it to the list with daylight saving and retail trading hours.

There are too many councils in WA, no argument.

Other states have reformed and modernised their municipal structures, but not Western Australia.

I didn’t agree with how Jeff Kennett went about it in Victoria. He merged some councils unnecessarily and inappropriately, such as the Latrobe Valley.

Traralgon was operating just fine with 25,000 people and didn’t need to be lumped in with Morwell and Moe.

A balance can be found between forced amalgamation and doing nothing.

The voluntary regional council proposed in the Goldfields is a step towards achieving that balance, but doesn’t go far enough.

Menzies doesn’t have enough ratepayers to justify its own council. Keep a “shopfront”, works depot and service centre for sure, but not a CEO and all the trimmings.

Coolgardie and Kambalda have more community of interest with Kalgoorlie than with each other, but they’re lumped together.

The problem with leaving the final decision to councils themselves is that councillors are politicians, and not many politicians vote themselves out of office.

If you leave it to communities they will be guided largely by their elected members, who are invariably hostile to giving up their positions.

That’s why the state needs to step in. The Minister should take charge and either do what she thinks best, or commission a respected consultant to make specific recommendations.

This should be done before the election so the State Government can go to voters with a policy and seek a mandate for change.

SS Bajwa suffered serious head injuries when he fell from the first-floor terrace of his home on Saturday morning trying to fight off the monkeys. The city has long struggled to counter its plague of monkeys, which invade government complexes and temples, snatch food and scare passers-by.

It’s not too hard to imagine an Australian equivalent for politicians being attacked by animals.

For instance, the way the pork barrel is rolling around in the current election campaign, Kevin Rudd and John Howard are both at risk of being trampled in a stampede of flying pigs.

That means I can answer this question safe in the knowledge I don’t need to interfere with the economy or the social structure. They must be working already.

1) I’d appoint an advisory council made up of community and industry leaders. I wouldn’t have to accept their advice, but I could not govern effectively without it.

2) I would guarantee the independence of the judiciary, appoint a powerful ombudsman and ensure the police force was properly organised and well paid.

3)  The only taxes would be a value-added tax and a bank debits tax.

4)  I would ensure free quality education to university level.

5) I would build an excellent public transport system and ban cars from city precincts.