Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act - "Nothing is off the table"

According to the West Australian...

Aboriginal Affairs Minister Tony Buti has opened the door to an overhaul of controversial Indigenous heritage laws, declaring nothing was off the table and ‘if there needs to be change, they will be changed’.

So what changed, before...before the 30,000 signatures & the diabolical Public Education meetings, all was well. It only needed to be implemented & then sort it out. There were no LACHs, no register of "Knowledge holders" and no set list of registered sites.

Legislation with $10 Million fines looming & no protection for anyone who didn't know what was allowable or what the process was.

Things that HAVE TO BE ON THE TABLE

1) Mr Buti has to be removed as minister. Not lose one portfolio & keep others he MUST to go to the back bench. His ministerial career must end ASAP. This is the biggest & the worst legislative debacle of ill preparedness & over reach in living political memory. He cannot touch this or any other ministry.

2) Don't use a smokescreen, do not offer to change the regulations. Scrap the entire Act & start again.

3) Protection of Cultural Sites is important & essential. Define them. Set a cut off date and if they're not registered by then, that's too late. Set the date, make the register & NO Rules, Regulations, Actions, Prosections or Penalties can apply until the list is completed.

4) Whatever is on the list MUST be Cultural, not linked or connected to anything supernatural. Sites with artefacts or human remains are simply accepted by everyone.
HOWEVER anything of a supernatural nature is a Creation Worldview. Many religions have a Creation Worldview & many non Theist Philosophies reject all Religious Dogma that pertain to how earth, life including humans began. No Supernatural element or places linked to mythical creatures can be entered into without landowners consent & even then only for as long as the landowner allows. It must be purely a conscentual agreement between parties with a written contract or...nothing at all if the land owner decides. 

Supernatural sites, sneakily hudden under the title "Intangibles" are illegal acts of law that impose a religious worldview upon non believers. We have a seperation of Church & State to stop this, to prevent religious taxes being sneakily brought in.

5) The Act should cover every square metre of WA, no matter the owner. It should apply without fear nor favour & if any residential land is exempt then ALL LAND TITLES WITH A RESIDENCE MUST BE FULLY EXEMPT. No preferences, no favouritism. If there's any exemptions then all in or all out.

6) All fines & fees MUST NOT go to any knowledge holders, LACHs or "inspectors" otherwise they are incentivised to find as many sites as possible & push for an application on each activity on a block of land instead of a once off claim of significance.

7) There must be a minimal application fee where applicable, if it gets beyond the cost of licencing a car, the State Government & the non owner stakeholders can fund the costs.

8) Appeals, there has to be a clear appeals process via the SAT with no cost to the land owners.

9) Inspectors powers must not extend to Search Without Warrant. If there is a crime taking place, then Police know their powers & their limitations. Go for it, but nothing more.

How on earth MPs agreed to this & how on earth the Governor signed off on it to give it Royal Ascent is a Mystery. Hopefully someone will clarify. In any case, the entire Act must go in the bin, it is a Creation Worldview Act of Parliament, one that the WA Parliament has no Authority to pass.

I have spoken with several people from advocacy groups, not all quite get that, but they will in time.
Its not the regulations that Mr Buti should kindly offer to tweak, the entire Act should be suspended & then properly repealed & replaced. 

One thing is for sure. Clock is ticking. The longer Mr Buti stays in Cabinet, the longer Roger Cook fiddles his thumbs, plays distractional warfare the worse this gets. 
The minister must be sacked from the cabinet. If leading bureaucrats must be identified & demoted, so be it. If anyone suggests the biggest, by far the worst monumental legislative disaster in living memory is just the minister & no one else...well you'd have to be on crack & drunk.

If everything is on the table perhaps we should look at more but those things HAVE TO BE NON STARTER NON NEGOTIABLES

If A MP Voted For The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act They Could Be An Idiot, Here's Why...

Yeah they might not, but if they voted for one of the aspects of it, then yes there's a very good argument they are indeed an idiot & should leave politics, which is supposed to be about law making, y'know legislation.
We want good legislators, not more popularist politicians or thoughless ideologues or, lets ot forget, hopeless pretenders grifting their way to debt reconstruction or some massive wage & lofty regard that is many times greater were they in the real world & had to rely upon their own talent & skill.

Harsh?
I don't think so.
I think for starters politics is meant to be something a whole lot different than what we have now & we need structural reform of the idea of politics & the application of that idea in process & reality.
Politics SHOULD NEVER be about winning (although I concede that can never be eliminated) it should always be about making WISE DECISIONS and with the Aboriginal Cultural Hertiage Act it has not been about the Wisdom, it has not been mostly about WISE DECISIONS.

Watch the video stream archived in the Parliament House website. If this was so important why is the Parliament always so damn empty? It seems these days the number of people is minimum quorum.
It's whatever number the opposition is PLUS the Government side Plus one, sometimes a two or three other Government MPs to allow the Government majority.

The old line those missing are doing other work, they're in their office...I'm not a fan of "ringing of the bell" to call those not dutifully sitting in the chamber to quickly go in and add their vote to the final number as a good aspect of Parliament. A postal vote in an election has more validity.

That part aside theAboriginal Cultural Heritage Act has a serious fault & by serious I'm not sure how it could get anymore serious and there are so many Members of Parliament who either did not think of it or if they did they conveintly put it aside for some scary reason, either arrogance or ill intent.

The good or ok bit. I like history, no I love it. Museums & the study of history either recent or ancient is a wonderous & noble thing. More of it can't hurt. If the aim of the Act was to preserve & help share artefacts & other aspects of actual culture...I am all for it. Those physical things are referred to as Tangibles with this legislation.

Where the legislation slides off the table of common sense & fell onto the floor of stupid is some aspects of what the Act covers as INTANGIBLES.
If it discussing a site or an area or a cave, a river, a wetland in fact any geological feature in the landscape & the claim is that Aboriginals believe a mythical creature lives or lived there, that spirits are disturbed or any of the Dreamtime aspects creep in or anything that is even ever so slightly SUPERNATURAL in anyway...we have a serious problem with the legislation.

In fact we not only have a problem with that aspect of the legislation, we have a potentially illegal Act under Australian law & it will probably have to be struck down in the Parliament & I would have to seriously question the Governor who signed off on the legslation. It's possible the Givernor who allowed this to get "Royal Ascent" and therefore become law is well out of their depth & has to be replaced immediately and a great number of MPs will have to apologise to the State, to the electors & either abolish the Act or the offending part of the Act or leave Parliament or both.

Once we protect an area due to a story that is a story of SUPERNATURAL BELIEF, we have a creation story, from a creation worldview belief, a faith, a RELIGIOUS WORLDVIEW. Now I know some of the Labor MPs will argue it's not a religion & they will attempt to use & get us to use their definition of a religion to forgive this monumental flaw, fault, debacle but sorry...you can sprinkle glitter & suger on a dead & rotting crayfish, it does not make it a genuine contender for winning the Melbourne Cup no matter how hard you try, how loud you yell or how many people you get to agree & loudly back you.
We need to move to objective truth where ever we can, especially in law making where, here's just one big truth bomb...its about the greater good, for the lesser negative impact without fear nor favour.

The problem we now have is legislation has been passed in Parliament that protects or could protect a site or region from non Aboriginal activity, including development or digging a hole because of beliefs in SUPERNATURAl things...that is a creation worldview story, a religious dogma but it only protects & adds power to one religious cohort over all others & excludes all others.

If a group want to build a Mosque, Temple, Synagogue or Church on some land over 1100 squre metres they will have to get permission via a process that will include legislated fees that are then returned to that cohort assessing the application. That assessment may deem the mosque, synagogue, temple or church cannot go ahead due to matters that are "intangible" that is there's something SUPERNATURAL preventing a religious group or a farmer, a property developer from digging that hole or disturbing that area...due to their religious belief of a SUPERNATURAL component at that site. 
Oh & development that begins without this exclusive religious approval process also has the power of enabling inspectors, which can include WA Police to enter without a warrant & there's the court penalty of a possible $10 million fine.
You virtually have a religous taxes via fees, court supported religious powers over non believers, you have one exclusive group that can get police backing, court enforcing law over people not of that faith due to beliefs of SUPERNATURAL creatures or stories. 
Add in, unless you're born into that race you cannot join that religion, have full knowledge of the creation worldviews. In fact unless the knowledge holders who along with a small group of others within their cohort seem to select themselves the knowledge holders we cannot have the full account of knowledge the knowledge holders have because some is secret & cannot be shared wtih others they declare to be excluded or from the outside & some intangible sites will only be shared IF a development or land use is sought via the process not before. For reasons of protecting the sacredness of the intangible.

That is an indefensible over reach of religious power afforded to a small & exclusive group of creation story believers that don't have to share the full worldview with anyone & when they do share some it a fee for service sharing. This closed worldview/religion cohort financially & personally benefit from the sharing & the courts will enforce it. 

Such religious powers cannot nor should they ever be allowed to pass in any Legislature, especially Australia. One religious worldview cannot over rule over another on religious grounds. The Governor who signed off on this was wrong, wrong to the saddly full extent a person in that office could be. This Act of Parliament should never ever be allowed to be. The MPs who knew about this, realised it & then pressed on...ideally, they need to removed themselves from office or be removed. Those that voted for it & had no idea they were supporting a closed Religious Authority to rule over others of differing worldview/religion shouldn't have gained preselection to begin with.
This Act needs all INTANGIBLES and veto powers connected to any belief of any SUPERNATURAL type removed.
If its culture, then yes protect the artefacts, removes the human remains of people for proper burial under WA Law. 

And that's it. Allow landowners to pursue whatever is allowable on their own land irrespective of race, colour, creed, religion or perhaps even claimed lack thereof. If a Mosque wants to pray to Allah, they can do that & any other ritual that doesn't breach the WA Criminal Code on their own land. They cannot prevent someone digging a hole on or next to their boundary & insist a religious/creation world view knowledge holder from the Mosque has to be paid a fee to consult & decide or a $10 Million fine may result. Comply with our creation beliefs or go to court is a vile wrongful legislative act.

The INTANGIBLES are over reach, they're religious enforcement backed potentially by WA Police & the WA Courts. What on earth were the "legislators" thinking?

***************************************************************************

Side note - The Wagyl Story that impacted so hugely on the Swan Brewry Redevelopment back in the day was an epic example of religious fervour, using one groups supernatural beliefs to impact on a building site. Made all the more odd in that the lead activist at the time was not a Swan River blackfella but a chap with known lineage in the Wickepin/Yealering area. Not my claim. That was the claim of blackfellas I knew at the time who said its made worse by two things...

1) There was a site attributed to the water seprent, the activists were way off in its location & they told me where the real spot was & the activists weren't even close. The old Brewery Site was not a problem at all.

2) Those that held the knowledge couldn't say anything. A louder voice had taken the stage & it was too late, they couldn't cause trouble or shame for the activists publicly, in fact they had little they could do at all. Sit back & watch or look away.

Now I can only claim what I was told & perhaps its right & perhaps its false. But I know where they said the cave/hole was & it wasn't the Brewry site, its next to a site that was developed decades earlier & the cave/hole isn't visible, haven't been since a minor landslide around the turn of the 20th century so if anything, the site is protected & has been protected since then.

I went bold and did ask if its still of importance to them & they said yes. I asked was it still part of rituals or religious practice & they said no but it's a place of importance to their history and was told "like where your first whitefella fathers got off the row boat & walked here first time or where they had sons born first time or put their dead first time, its important story places"
They don't practice all their culture which seems to have no seperation between religion/creation worldview & acutal societal culture. Theerein lies a huge gap in foundational logic & something many of the Members of Parliament lacked completely.

Now imagine them, any of them let alone the majority saying "Yeah we got this badly wrong & created an exclusive law backed monopoly market for some based on creation worldview that is culture to some but religion to all others"
Nah, some'll redfine religion & create bigger worm holes of logical implosions leading to more very entrenched division, fear & sadly in some cases hate. All avoidable.
It had to be rushed through Parliament. How any MP can ever survive as a Minister of the WA Government will be a testament to ideology over good governance. 

That I get, that is fair & reasonable.

Twitter - Vegan Ideology

Twitter is a funny medium. It can be a cess pool or it can be a great discussion platform.
Whether its great or cesspool-ish depends on who's saying what. Its just a reflection of life, of humans.
It's worse than real life because some people hide behind fake names. Some need to for good reason some for bad reasons. If its to allow you to project wrongful premises then that identity firewall is going to enbolden some people to go further than they would in real face to face life.
Vegans are neither ok or not ok with me. Its not a thing. What a person eats is their own business just as it matters not if you're a smoker/non smoker or a drinker/non drinker.
Eat what you want. 

If you want all others to do as you do, add a moral condemnation component to help hold up your failed end of the discussion there's a very real danger you might end up being a wilfully devout hypocrite with a logic implosion. 
If you use words like murder, genocide, rape, slavery in relation to consuming animal products you're stealing prescriptive terms from the Crimimal Code to use as failing moral guilt tools to bolster your idea of coercing & forcing others to comply. You may no longer be an everyday reasonable person who just happens to be on a vegan diet, its possible you're in a cult. The Veganazi Cult.

If you make a moral claim upon others or on animal products in general THAT is a moral judgement.
If you make a moral judgement YOU must set out which Moral Code YOU are using to make that moral claim & judgement. That is only reasonable & sensible. We had 2 people go to town & all I did was keep asking again & again 
What is the moral code you're using to make this moral claim, moral judgement?
How & why exactly does that moral code have the authority to be be binding upon all others?

We got close, one said he believed in evolution. It went bad, if evolution is your only worldview morals don't exist, they have no authority & cannot be imposed upon others, if they do it needs to be explained.
I was then met with the reply "OK troll" & blocked.

The other coward account slipped up also & said that morals were personal "like abortion etc"
What followed was deflections & dsitraction because thats moral relativism & if morals are relative then no one set of morals are great or lesser than others, its all up to the individual & none can be imposed upon others. The delivers to moral relativist with a serious intellectual dilemma.
They can't push their morals nor make a moral judgement upon others. That's why Moral Relativism is unversally panned, mocked & debunked...except by those who cling to it & avoid explain their logic.
So we kept trying to get a logical explanation but after 15+ attempts to get answers I pulled the pin.
The answers to what questions?

1) What moral code are you using to make a moral judgement upon others
2) What authority does that moral code have to become binding on all others

Makes sense if there's a moral claim & we have to accept it, we should be allowed to view the moral code & see if its flawed or not.
In the end, no progress so, best to declare it a cult out loud & people can make their own mind up...or not.
Don't be coerced or guilted into anything especially if they clearly don't understand & refuse to explain it...of clearly can't.

The long answer posted was...


You hate agriculture. YOU hate things you don't understand at all, YOU'VE an ideology YOU'RE passionately committed to but YOU don't, won't & can't explain it. YOU'RE clearly manifestly untrustworthy & YOUR ideology is Intellectually Bankrupt & wilfully so YOU may be YOUR own problem. Like Tash YOU are keen to impose YOUR will, YOUR lifestyle upon others anyway YOU can.

YOU make moral claims upon others & then when asked again & again what Moral Code YOU are using to make the moral judgement YOU don't want to be clear, concise, honest & open about it. Then if the arrogance hasn't gone full Everest in size already the Moral Code YOU want to keep hidden whilst YOU judge others with it...YOU cannot say why it should be binding upon all others as YOU want it to be & infer it must be. To avoid an immensely arrogant & monumentally embarassing logic implosion you shape shift & deflect. All YOU have to do is cite YOUR moral code which allows YOU to make the moral judgements YOU'VE made & explain why its binding upon all others, under what authority YOU haven't cos YOU CANNOT. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. We & YOU know The other chap did the exact same & I polite kept asking the key premise basis & eventually he called me names, called me a troll then blocked. To YOUR credit YOU went closer, YOU said morals were personal, like "abortion etc" If morals are personal then you're saying there is no moral authority in life, there is no moral code only personal preferences & whoever is the most shouty & coerces someone to one view is the go...ala thug think tactics of Tash & other Veganazis. If YOU are genuine about YOUR ideology, that morals are personal..THAT is called Moral Relativism. That YOUR truth is THE truth to YOU. Forcing it upon others is Post Modernist Cultural Marxism, keep yelling & screaming until they fold & comply. If morals are personal then anyone, by YOUR logic could eat an animal that is alive IF they think its ok whilst another can think all meat is evil & should be banned without either saying WHY & HOW its right or wrong. If a personal wants to go to a restaurant & eat a steak in peace & uninterupted they can & should...and yet we have crazed Veganazis intent on forcing their ideology they cannot explain upon others. Remember I made no Moral Claim that meat for food was evil, murder yada yada. YOU DID. YOU made the moral claim & cannot produce the moral code that allowed YOU to make the Moral Judgement. YOU said morals were personal. So those eating are exercising their free will, totally legally & without forcing a view or worldview upon anyone else. What YOU are doing is akin to people picketing a vegan restaurant & screaming at patrons & saying they should & must eat meat, that only vegan is immoral. If that ever happened I'd call that out as being equally Intellectually Bankrupt & childishly moronic as your Veganazi Ideology is. Now underline this, eat & don't eat whatever you want, I don't care. Its YOUR choice. No one should tell you what you can & can't eat, should or shouldn't eat nor make a manifestly foul & illogical moral judgement upon another due to their diet. I have no problem at all with vegans, each to their own. I am very happy to defend their right to choose whatever diet they want although it shouldn't be a point of moral attack or defence. Vegans are all humans, us. The people that go off the rails are the ones termed Veganazis who make damning (in their minds) moral condemnation on others for eating animals & yet cannot, will not cite the moral THEY use to make the moral judgements THEY use to condemn & try to force others to comply with. This is the very ugly nature of the veyr vile cultural Marxism. Perfomance art with fake blood & childish picket lines will not replace the need for a proper explanation of the moral vaccum YOU are operating in & hope to force YOUR way thru & get everyone to fall behind you. YOU are in a CULT. If morals are personal as you say YOU would be consistent & logical & let others eat what they want. YOU are in a cult. You have demonstrated keenly & very accurately YOU are a cult member. Many good people who are vegans are not in a cult. Some go back to animal products get referred to as "lapsed" and if they do not return can get abuse. CULT tactics. Morals are personal...as long as they are exactly same as yours & everyone complies with YOUR lack of reason & intellectual foundation. What you say no longer matters

Socialism In Australia Now

In times past, not even that long ago there's been discussion, respectful ones by online standards about Socialism. The defence of Socialism has taken several paths. One is a short one, a close down technique along the lines of "You don't even know what it means, that's not even close"
The other has been used so much that is now has a life of its own as a self parody or nearly a meme...
That in reference to a failed Socialist state it wasn't proper socialism or generally its never been tried properly.

There is another support angle that pops up. That is socialism brought us great things like a police force, national armed forces for our protection like Army. Navy, Airforce. Brought us hospitals & fire fighting services and public transport.

Strangely though, many of them predate Karl Marx & later socialist writers but none are actually found within Marxist manifestos or platforms. Virtually all are a result of parliaments which changed & turned into parliaments of public servants when the name PUBLIC SERVANTS actually meant those who served the public. It was elected law makers made up of REAL Conservatives vs WISE Progressives. None of which were Socialist or Marxist based.

Well worth remembering that those elected law makers, primarily real legislators & some politicians were elected. They were not appointed & selected by a ruling class at the top & nor was that ruling class in power for life. 

It wasn't perfect, not is it ever likely to be perfect & the structure of any Government is likely to be swings & roundabouts, positives & negatives. The very idea of regular elections is to empower the people to change a government without bloodshed. But it is the ability to change of government. In the past we've seen all opposing parties try to change boundaries (Gerrymanders) to retian seats to retain government & now the WA Upper House Electoral Reform to give metropolitan seats more power or rather less say to the regions.
It was brought in to give us One Vote One Value because thats 100% EQUAL.
Downside is, there is not 100% EQUAL hospital services in the bush. Nor policing. Nor public transport, nor a thousand other things. People in the bush had an electoral weighting so all benefits they should be getting weren't reliant on metropolitan based governments with metropolitan priorities. Thing is, now there are far more seats in the metro area & the house of review is going to also be dominated by metropolitan seats...which Labor will hope to dominate.

In effect, one party is likely to benefit from this, the WA Labor Party. They controlled both houses & were able to usher it through straight after their election during COVID & it was pushed through as a COVID priority. It didn't affect COVID & the Act, passed in 2021 would not be used or able to be used until March 2025. It was a huge priority. And yet just weeks earlier it was stated as being "not on our agenda"
One Labor MP messed up & later said it wasn't on the agenda during the campaign because they didn't know how many seats they would win. Clearly, it was to remain hidden & unspoken until they were sure they could secure both houses...and they did. And it was suddenly a priority & it was passed. One of the bigger legislative changes & the electors prior to polling day weren't just not told, it was hidden from them.
Quite a thing. 
You change the playing field, you can claim the massive dominance in the legislature is all democratic.

That leads us to the WA Labor Party & Socialism.
It is by its own consitution a Democratic Socialism Party & therein we see the devil is in the lack of detail.
Socialism is not made better by adding a word in front like Democratic.
Ready for Democratic Khmer Rouge or Democratic Nazi Party?
No & the same applies to Democratic Socialism because all the Marxist offshoots were designed to kill & replace Capitalism. Now you cannot have democracy without capitalism.
Its just the way it is.

If you want to democratically move the means of production away from individuals & companies and over to the state, that just means you have democratically voted to do away with capitalism & deomocracy.
Take a minute on that, you would be voting to do away with the right to vote, the right to own assets & property & the right to your own individual freedoms and rights.

You would be aiming to usher in Socialism/Communism without a war & once its there for it to be "done properly" by the Marxist Manifestos you will need the State To Be All & There Is Nothing Outside The State. Meaning you would eventually reach a point where you cannot vote it out. 

If you think Governments can run businesses & run them well then that's a failed argument. They run on massive largesse & terminal waste with their only safety line being higher taxes to pay for more waste.

It is a huge concern that so few successful businessmen & businesswomen go onto a life in the Parliament.
Those that do, tell me how many are in WA Labor.
Most are ex-employees of the Union movement or the new generation of Chardonnay Socialists who see a quick career pathway into politics & probably not very good at running a business & have an equally appalling understanding of Socialism. But they do know how to do a great selfie for social media, visit a school, old age home, sporting event, hand over a giant cheque they had no input into at all (or they've broken the law if they did)...all about the fake rockstar optic with quick smile bombs and no time for discussions or questions. Most are entirely out of their depth & rely solely on the higher tier one MPs closest to the leader or on Bureaucrats who are either party members or party supporters/enablers.  

In fact if Socialism were to run its natural course all workers, that is all employed staff would eventually become Government Employees. The line between Unions & Government becomes blurred & potentially as one. But then they're not really that democratic either, they're very factionalised & sketchy fiefdoms.

If you're a worker, yes unions can serve a veyr vital function. Abused though, they become a cartel for their ruling elites who all rub shoulders with the socialist government elite or in the case of one recent couple...the husband was a Union elite & his wife was a Labor MP elite.
When you're in that position you're able to amass a vast personal fortune that is not possible for either were they employed in normal jobs based on merit. It is very anti democracy & the working class are getting thoroughly ripped off but passionately stay there.

If WA Labor is a "Democratic Socialist" party they certainly go to great lengths to never explain what that means EXACTLY and what its limits are. It does support redistributing the means of production, its in their consititution so I'm not exactly sure how that, aside from semantics & word tricks differs from any failed Socialist regime.

Where WA is at now is the pendulum will swing. It always does. Its how much more damage is going to be done when it finally swings & how much damage the next non Socialist government has the will to fix when they take office. That which they don't fix will be ratcheted yet again when the Socialists regain government at a later date.

Take the 2 planes the WA Government uses. One is a proper plane, the other a jet. They used to be contract flights owned by private operaters. Not now. Now they're government owned. So there's less out in the open reporting on miles travelled & costs. WIll a conservatoive government revert that back to non government operators under a regular tender process or will it remain with an ever increasing budget hidden within the budget? Premier Mark McGowan flew the jet to Carnavon to give the abducted child who was found, a stuffed toy. Children have been abducted since, one in Perth & was thankfully again found unharmed. The Premier did not visit that child. There wasn't the same huge public story attached. Cynical? No.

Ambulance ramping was going off the charts & it was caused by a failed Hospital System. One of the Labor Governments big solutions was to mount an inquiry into the St John's Ambulance with the view to closing that tender & making Ambulance Service a fully Government operation. The proponent Pierre Yang MLC is from the union that would cover all those new Government workers & guess what...monthly ambulance ramping figures would no longer exist.
There's your democratic socialism in full glare.

Oppose it or at least get your nearest Labor MP to explain what Democratic Socialism is becuase it sure does look like much more & much bigger government in every walk of life.