Had you asked our politicians to critique the Westminster system of governance ten years ago, the UBP would almost certainly have spoken favourably while the PLP probably felt that it made their lives as opposition miserable. Jump forward to 2004 and the answers are probably the same while the respondents have changed, simply because the parties have switched roles.

Today we're faced with an opportunity to legislate in a spirit of bipartisanship unthinkable before the 1998 election. This is by no means due to the election of the PLP as such, but through the now shared experiences of both parties as opposition and government.

Pre-1998 the party which had never governed couldn't truly understand the responsibility and difficulties that come with occupying the Cabinet Office, while the party which had only ever been in charge couldn't possibly understand the frustration and difficulties of an opposition.

So have our leaders finally reached enlightenment?

Sadly it seems that we're locked in the same Westminster game of political one-upmanship and point scoring that, while entertaining, is probably its most frequent criticism. It seems unlikely that we'll be moving away from this system soon, but there are some baby steps that can be taken which will set us on the path towards harnessing the best ideas of each party.

The onus is on the governing party to initiate this shift, taking the high road and incorporating some flexibility into a heretofore inflexible system. That comment might itself appear partisan, but the most well intentioned Opposition has few options if the Government engages in the same tactics they deplored while out of power.

Now is the time for the PLP to rise above the appeal of political payback and reach across the aisle, inviting the Opposition to join them in addressing the issues of the day. Currently it appears that after 30 years on the receiving end, the Government has ? to some extent understandably ? opted to repeat the behaviour of their predecessors and exploit the system to their advantage rather than change the tone.

The most significant impediment to an Opposition contributing legislatively rather than simply criticising Government bills, is the rule that prevents them from tabling legislation with financial implications. Anytime government bureaucracies swing into action the meter starts running and if time is money then governments know how to spend money. This is the trump card of all Westminster governments and was recently played over the Parliamentary drug testing initiative. A good idea that would cost as little as $3,600 a year and involve only the writing of a cheque by the Government, was thrown out without debate.

At first glance this restriction might seem necessary. Oppositions, not privy to Budget discussions, could create financial problems through overspending and lack the authority to supervise policy implementation. However a majority party determined to support the best ideas, regardless of the source, could remedy this.

A government could and sometimes does adopt opposition initiatives as their own. Unfortunately good ideas are usually ignored for fear of the implicit admission that the idea is just that and could result in a perceived political win for the opposition.

More constructively, Government could allocate a sum of money in every budget for Opposition policies. Imagine that, money for the Opposition to use to implement a few initiatives without bankrupting the country! This amount could start at $250,000 a year for example (less than one tenth of one percent of the 2004 budget) or a fixed percentage of the total budget.

How the Opposition choose to spend this allocation is up to them, either for one initiative a year or twenty $10,000 ones. Remember that they'd still have to convince those across the aisle of the merit of the bill. Unlike the government, a minority party can't pass the best idea with their members support alone, but governments can pass dumb ones unchecked.

What could you do with $250,000? How's about fund the drug testing of MPs, install GPS in Cabinet vehicles, build a Parliamentary website and install TV cameras in Parliament for example?

This small step could begin the process of harnessing the best ideas from all elected members and remove some of the partisanship that currently exists.