The very strange exchange on the WA Country Hour regarding death threats over firearms.

Several points regarding The WA COUNTRY HOUR guests interviewed. Trevor Whittington CEO of WAFarmers on Friday 31st of January & Bevan Steele from WA Firearms Traders Association on Monday 3rd of February.

Trevor Whittington claimed there were death threats from Rec Shooters/lunatic fringe that caused WAPol to pull out of the WAFarmers Firearms Roadshow.
WAPol hasn't said "death" threats yet. Nor is anyone saying who is responsible for any alleged threats...except Trevor Whittington.

Some have claimed Bevan Steele (WAFTA) rejected that & said it was farmers who made death threats. That is incorrect. 

Bevan said there is no way Trevor Whittington would be able to know if it’s Rec Shooters or angry Farmers or any other cohort. The only ones likely to know are Investigating Police Officers & fairly sure, if they knew who it was, they sure as heck wouldn't tell anyone whilst a matter is still "operational"
So Trevor is wrong or Trevor is right...Unsure which is is more deeply concerning. 

In his Friday interview Trevor said he & others had copped abuse/flak on social media from anonymous people. Bevan can only be referring to that when he said Trevor had brought it upon himself (paraphrasing) 

At no point did Bevan make any claim about death threats being from farmers or rec shooters. Bevan Steele did question quite rightly why Mr Whittington was speaking public for WAPol whilst WAPol has been largely quiet apart from a short statement ABC Country Hour Presenter read out. That statement did not mention death threats or what’s sometimes termed by some as “an imminent risk of a threat to life”.

WAPol press release read out on the radio said it was “operational reasons” & safety. 

Mr Whittington clearly said in the interview that WAPol had “received threats” and it was only when the interviewer asked Mr Whittington what sort of threats did he say death threats against senior police.

He indicated at one point that Firearms Branch were planning to attend. He said there was back & forth with WAPol & the minister’s office.

He clearly said WAPol attendance was cancelled by “higher up command”

Now if it’s an operational matter I’m deeply wondering why on earth the minister’s office was involved at all, let alone now during a very political election campaign.
I’m sure there’s a reason, we can only hope its forthcoming.

The WAFarmers Firearms public meetings are now going ahead. Apparently they're now about collecting questions to be forwarded to WAPol.

Good idea. That is, it would have been a GREAT IDEA to have public roadshow meetings BEFORE attending any Primary Producers Firearms Advisory Board meetings. It might have lessened the embarrassingly clueless looking “representation” they provided. 

It’s like the member groups were willing participants in divide & conquer. Something Mr Whittington seems to have repeated & amplified on the radio last Friday.

Now the PGA cannot comment. The chairman may but the operation of the PGA's business comes under the direction of the Voluntary Administrators. They may be rescued, they may face liquidation but currently they do not operate in the Ag Lobby space at all. 
 

The other 3 remaining member groups of the PPFAB are the Kimberley Pilbara Cattleman’s Association, Vegetables WA & Wines of WA.

All silent.

These roadshow meetings should have been PPFAB public meetings with the actual delegates from all member groups in attendance. Remember without any authority the Minister declared his hand picked PPFAB was to be the only representation for all primary producers. Where are they all & how did they actually consult with all non members through out Agriculture? They didn't.

Still unconfirmed, but although CEO of WAFarmers, Trevor Whittington is thought to have been Chairman of Wines of WA when the PPFAB was formed. 

If correct that is remarkably odd & more so if Mr Whittington was CEO of WAFarmers whilst the Wines WA delegate on the PPFAB (?)

We do know the Merino Breeders Association, WA Grains Group & other Ag groups were never invited to join the PPFAB.

We still cannot find any Landcare group, any Farm Improvement group or or ant stud breeder group, any Catchment group invited or consulted, no roo shooter group, none.

In fact we can’t find any group who was invited to join but didn’t

Its unconfirmed at this stage but it does look like 5 groups were chosen to the exclusion of all others.

If so why?

We might find out why, we might not.

Mr Whittingtons claimed that political parties largely stayed out of the debate. That was a total jaw dropper. There were several Firearms ePetitions to parliament. One with over 32,000 signatures. PGA & WAFarmers didn’t support nor promote it. Why?

492 sections in the Bill and it was denied passage by the Labor Party to the Upper House’s Legislation Committee. The PPFAB & its individual member groups silent. Why?
 

97% of the Bill was denied debate in the Upper House before it was bulldozed through into law. The PPFAB outrage at the sheer arrogant contempt for the Parliament…missing. Why?

I don’t know any Rec shooters who had a view on forming a primary producer licence. As a primary producer I didn’t want one. It’s unclear but primary producers that also compete in club sports will now have to have 2 separate licenses.
If they’re also collectors its 3 licences.
Having 3 seperate fees can never be ruled out with separate licences. 

This was made clear by many. But the PPFAB have not publicly commented on this debacle. Why?

The wedge was farmers get 10 firearms & rec shooters only allowed five.

We had genuine need & fit and proper person tests THAT HAD TO BE APPROVED BY WAPol before that the Law Reform Commission report clearly supported & it also clearly opposed setting numerical limits.
PPFAB supported numerical limits & extra licences, we didn't. Why?

Their correct move, “Sorry minister that’s contrary to the LRC’s Project 105, we can’t accept that” and when the minister got to a predetermined agreed number of  unacceptables, all PPFAB should have resigned from the minister’s board in protest.

Instead they look like willing, wiful origami, folding as directed & now trying to deflect their failure.

Some are claiming all sorts of theories why the PPFAB got so much wrong. Were they enablers, were they preparing for future career opportunities within Government circles

I’m not convinced of any of those & I’m reminded of the old saying…

Never underestimate 2 things

Incompetence & the extraordinary lengths some go to just to conceal it. 

But lets just circle back. Lets return to the allegation of death threats. I’m not police hierarchy but I’d have thought WAPol repsonse would be with step in and cancel the events or allow them to run with an extremely large police presence.

When we all attended the massive Live Export public meeting at Katanning some years ago, everyone was stunned at extraordinary level of Police presence in attendance. 

It’s like “there’s been death threats, we police aren’t coming but you go right ahead”

Sorry not buying that. That dog won’t hunt. 

Police aren’t scared of threats, they respond to threats. If WAPol has had actual death threats then they’d know by who. Those people would be in custody or detained for questioning then released if all is ok.

It’s not just what’s been said, it’s also what’s not being said.
Until WAPol's "higher up command" as Mr Whittington described them come forward with the facts of the risk and the threat I'm wondering how on earth he outside WAPol & CEO of WAFarmers knows what he alleges to know about risk & threat.

And what was the involvement of the Minister's office the Mr Whittington claimed was involved.

All very bizarre.
You can find Mr Whittington's interview on the ABC Radio archive. 

Gun Rally - Yes or No

If I say yes or no right now I'd guess a fair proportion of readers (however few they are in numbers) will log off this page & go look at some cool videos. That's likely to be summed up with 2 sayings that annoy some pople "Such is life" and "It is what it is".

So instead...

There is one & only one prime action left between the last day of the WA Parliament sitting & March 8th when it comes to Firearms Laws & Regulations. One. Just One. Vote Labor Out. As I type there are 37 days until Polling day. Even less when you consider Pre-Polling. There's an increasing number of people who use Pre-Polling. It's not long. Putting aside whether or not the Gun Rally is damaging or negative I'm not sure if the net gain benefits are there compared to focusing on the #1 ISSUE - Vote Labor Out. Perhaps the rally will help that priority but we can be certain what the speakers say will not be realyed in full without clever bias editing around the state. The rally is largely preaching to the converted, well a portion of them & whether they feel or genuinely are unrepresented or not at the moment, right now for that to change, they will have to change. I'm not sure if they mean unrepresented or not a direct input but right now the only task is Get Labor Out so they need to do their bit now & every day until Polling Day. The political dead zone is Last day of Parliament until Polling day. Not much happens except election promises. The representative groups can do nothing, no one will see them. Ministers are campaigning, making funding announcements that actually were decided before the last budget but are rolled out now for vote value. Local MP gets their picture taken with a massive LotteryWest Cheque for funding...stop, think & realise. THAT MP DID NOT MAKE THAT FUNDING DECISION. If they did that's a breach of proper process. They're the local big knob so they get asked to present it...you bet they will, vote points. Little is happening now except campaigning. There is no ability to improve anything in the legislature, there is not ability to improve the regulations via committee, minister or cabinet. THIS IS THE POLITICAL DEAD ZONE. Its the dead zone when a hostile to us govt would love for us to get stirred up & bang fingers at each other, jostle for position. Where we create our own wedges & we help the Government divide & conquer us. If there is 90,000 licenced firearms owners I don't what % the rally organisers are expecting but sadly the Labor Govt is not scared of anyone, regardless of the numbers Their arrogance and contempt for the Firearms ePitition was staggering. Over 30,000 people signed on to the largest ePetition & 2nd largest of ANY petition to Parliament in my lifetime. It was ignored. Some were pretty irate that there's 90,000 firearms owners & only 30,000+ signed it. THAT was a massive turnout. Remember it it called for was that the Firearm's Bill be referred to the Upper House Legislation Committee as it should have been automatically. Few bills have gone there, a committee which is usually VERY busy. Louise Kingston MLC was sworn in & she signed onto that committee because one MP stepped down because there was strangely very little to do. As if the committee was bound & gagged, thrown in a dark cellar & told "Shush now, we'll call you when we need you) The committee's roll is to drill down deeper into the Bill, test all the problem list & the risk assessments that should be stacked high in files (doesn't seem to be any), go through all the independent evidential research of problem-solution connections & the etrics that would be used to gauge success or otherwise after the Bill is passed. THEN the Legislative Council's Legislation Committee would make recommendations for possible amendments (and why) and the Legislation Council considers them during debate. THIS DID NOT HAPPEN. THIS is the stab in the face for the WA Parliament. Stabbed with an ice pick that was dipped in red hot contempt. Now if that wasn't enough to be bigger front page news every week since the Bill was made law here's some emphasis that should. 492 sections in the Bill. It was MASSIVE. The WA Labor Party pulled the procedure lever referred to the guillotine. Debate cut short. Less that 3% of the Bill was debated. Forget the topic of firearms. Can you imagine any bill not being fully debated & if it was so serious, so over due, so much an existential threat to public safety...why was it denied passage to the Legislation Committee & not fully debated It was bulldozed through. Now if you had a Bad Legislation Rally now, it would be a flop, we're in the dead zone until March 8th. We are shouting into a cyclone with our vocal cords removed. A rally on legislation now would be all colour, movement & some sound if you're there. Otherwise it really is akin to, a tree falling in a forrest but no one's there, did it make any noise? I'd guess yes, but it changed nothign out to sea & is patently ineffective. The number one priority is Vote Labor Out. If anyone thinks showing up at the rally is all they have to do they are mistaken. If they think they are unrepresented, marginalised and/or not heard perhaps go through the cupboard & put on some adult pants (whether you go to a rally or not, think its a good thing or not) Write to a MP now. Don't wait for a reply, send another one in 4 days time then repeat. Egos & peeing contests over different tribes is counter productive. Go join a political party, or if you don't like that, send a donation which will help Vote Labor Out. Contact the local candidates you align with, offer to wear their T Shirt on Polling day, help with door knocking now. I'm not going to the rally, but I'm helping others to try & get elected. By all means go to the rally if you think there's a Net Benefit Gain...but don't get all loud & grumpy if that's the only effort you put it. Spare any time you can helping to Vote Labor Out. If after there election you're one of those who is again loud & grumpy and all you did was rant on FaceBook...don't you dare point fingers at the group or groups that all the political parties recognise, that will open their doors to listen to. Its those impatient angry foot stompers that are helping the Labor Govt divide and conquer. I note some Rally advocates talk unity, stop divide & conquer but they're not saying go to the Rally, then write to MPs twice a week, help one or more candidates from one or more different parties with their door knocking or handing out how to vote cards, donating time & money. Are you willing to spare time on polling day in the T shirt of a non Labor Party to hand out How To Vote? You should if you want good things saved. We have a very big problem & we need a calm wise solution. That involves you being present & helping or absent & being the problem. You ought to be angry but you have to be wise, smart, focused & measured. FWIW you have one Lower House MP & 6 Upper House MPs representing you, no matter where you live in WA. It will be that way until March 8th. Keep writing to them because they aren't all pullong out of politics. This election the ballot, Upper House changes, there is now One Vote One Value (which is neither equal or fair) so on the Upper House ballot the only district/region/electorate is WA. Where are most voters? Wanneroo to Bunbury. Where are most Labor voters? Traditionally Wanneroo to Bunbury. It was to fix the Upper House result in Labor's favour, nothing else.  

Which party should you support? You work it out, you decide but remember these things

Govt is formed in the Lower House. There will be 3 parties who'll get MPs elected there.
Only Labor will elect in its own right, the other option is a Liberal-National Government. 
If you want people to only vote Liberal, good luck, there won't be a change of Government. If you want a Nationals only Govt, forget luck cannot happen. You need minimum of 30 seats to form Govt & Nationals to date only have 17 candidates & many of them are in seats the Nationals have never contested before.

You Need To Promote Both Liberal & Nationals.
Both have committed to fixing the Firearms Act & yet still there's firearms owners wanting to demonise the Liberal Party. They have committed to fixing it. In the Lower House promote & vote Liberal or Nationals.
Re that massive ePetition...who organised that? Petitioner was Rick Mazza. The facilitating MP was Hon. Nick Goiran MLC. Both from the Liberal Party.
Maybe stop trying to find reasons to destroy what you want & get on board 

Help, promote & Vote Liberal & Nationals
In the Upper House help, promote, Vote Liberals, Nationals & friendly independents or minnow parties

If you want to demonise anyone, pick Labor & Greens, pin your ears back & go hard.

Reforming the Firearms Reforms - Danger Time is December 2024 to March 2025

December to March 8th Election Day is the period of time that is the most dangerous for the Law Abiding Firearms Owners wanting drastic reforms of the new Firearms Act. It holds the Christmas New Years break, a burst of holiday season for most people. There's a State Election & a Federal Election. State set for March 8th Federal we don't know but it must be close to the State election or at one point it was going to be very close which would explain the period of time when there was public squealing they might clash. One Labor senator or rather now an ex Labor senator let slip a comment that made it sound the 2 elections were close. Until its called, its all just conjecture.

 
The WA Parliament will not sit before Polling Day & likely won't sit until late March. So there is a lot of political movement, a lot of funding announcements for campaigning purposes & nothing mentioned on what's important to voters. Also whilst a new Upper Hosue will be elected on March 8th, the old MPs will retain their seats in the Upper House for a while until hand over.

Those not regularly involved or engaged in Australian Politics are stuck in what they think is a wrongfully silent vacuum. I'll come out and say it, some people will get frustrated & MAKE S**T UP out of frustration.
Others, very much keen to help the Party in Government will start & stoke fires that are loads of bulldust.
Its the most dangerous time for us & best time for a Government that will be wanting us to divide us amongst ourselves.

All of that is clearly out of step with stakeholders actual needs & seems to completely undermine whatever efforts had preceded the December to March period. Some of those efforts precede this dangerous times by many years.

It's bad enough that the oddly inaccurate named Firearms Reform Act was actually some of the worst over reach based on very little precise problem identification & evidential research in the so called "solutions".
Yes THAT is bad enough but what's worse is some very genuine people are loudly exercising their right of Freedom of Speech whilst doing so with Freedom of thought, fact or considered knowledge.

First, lets get it straight, yes there are definitely cases of very Pro Labor Party people threading into Pro Fair Firearms Legislation FaceBook groups and there are some others who are very passionate, very impatient & very grumpy people who are genuine but very misinformed. The Govtrolls want a splitting of the united effect & others may inadvertantly help do that by either trying to get themselves elected in a minor party, trying to get a minor party candidate elected or trying to get a rival lobbying organisation advanced or some just want to let off steam & haven't been all that politically engaged since...well some since ever.

These things can become a wedge. The Wedge Tactic is the one real solid go to from the Labor playbook that's worked & worked really well going back years, decades. Goes back longer than I can remember. Precedes the Burke era.
We have 3 main parties which are really 2 opposing sides (or supposed to be) 
One side is Labor & the other is Liberal & Nationals.
One side merely has to try & wedge the 2 teams on the opposing side & job done.

Labor are brilliantly at the Wedge because it is often employed internally. They are gifted at it.
I have seen it used brilliantly by wedging WAFarmers & PGA going back to late 70s early 80s.
Throw crumbs to one, throw more crumbs to the other, keep them fierce rivals, one's not going to be that happy. Once they start snapping at each other a minister simply sees the right predetermined trigger point is reached & announces "There are stakeholders here not agreeing & I have have to make a decision now so I will and..." and then its the "all along" Labor decision that stakeholders at the coal face do not want. Rival groups get the blame for squabbling against each other, minister pulls the decision they were ALWAYS going to pull, job done. Minister is the villain who's let off, WAFarmers & PGA get the blame.
For Labor..."It worked again, can you believe it? How easy"

Now we're seeing it all over again on many differing levels & the Govt aligned, the good but naive people are both contributing to helping Divide & Conquer.

Just some of the things that are being spouted that are wrong.

1) Liberals are Labor Lite, Labor & Liberal are 2 wings of the same bird...
Patently false & misleading. One is a socialist party, the other is quite the opposite. One is very much for bigger Government, more control by government says they're a Labour Movement First party but actually Socialist. The other is in favour of smallerbut more efficient Govt that gets out of the road where ever positive & possible. Keen on ensuring that MPs & Bureaucrats remain public servants that actually serve the public. Some pushing this are the same are good people very frustrated as yes both parties have learned further left over the years. But some pushing the Labor-Lite lie are clever Pro Labor people who know that if people abandon the 2 main parties, the preferences can more easily find their way to Labor not the Liberals or Nationals. In a previous election the SFFP sent preferences to Labor in several seats. Also if a person can be coaxed to ignore Greens, Labor, Nats & Liberals it is Labor who have the slight edge. To get changes that are fair, reasonable & workable you have to change the Government

To change Government WA needs BOTH Liberals & Nationals to do very well & collectively win 30+ seats.

2) Promoting a Nationals Government or at least a Liberal-National Coaltion with Nationals being the dominant Party.
Not even remotely possible. Could it be possible? Yes. Not in this election & not in any of the elections that the WA Nationals have contested since 1914 (Under the name Country Party then).
To date its actually been completely impossible. But labelling Nationals as the good guys & Liberals bad actually favours Labor by undermining the Liberal Party.
Government is formed in the Legislative Assembly, aka the Lower House. 
There are only 3 parties likely to elect candidates in the Lower House. Labor, Liberal & Nationals. If Greens, PHON, SFFP or any of the other minnows get a candidate elected in the Lower House it'll be a massive event in WA's history.
Labor can form Government on its own, Liberals & Nationals need a Lib/Nat coalition or alliance.
Wreck one of the two, you return Labor. That simple.

To change Government WA needs BOTH Liberals & Nationals to do very well & collectively win 30+ seats.

3) Forming Government in the WA Parliament 
There are 59 seats in the Lower House where Government is formed.
A party needs to win 30 as one MP will likely be lost to the position of Speaker of the House. They can & do vote BUT normally they don't, normally its a casting a vote during a division. So you need to win a minimum of 30 seats to have the majority to form Government.
This election Nationals have (as of today) only 17 candidates in the WA Legislative Assembly.
So if people are bagging the Liberals & promoting the Nationals as THE alternative and that ends up being effective across most electorates then Liberals & Nationals are heading to opposition. 

Nationals have slowly been losing seats in both houses over the last few elections. They now have no MPs north of Geraldton. The only new seat in the last few elections was Geraldton, that was a defection from the Liberal Party & that's since been lost. Plus Nationals are running candidates in electorates they have never run in before so unlikely to win many of those new to them seats.

To change Government WA needs BOTH Liberals & Nationals to do very well & collectively win 30+ seats.

4) Only One Party Supports Lawful Firearms Owners.
Rubbish. Silly, false & misleading. Not at all helpful to anyone except some of those trying to get elected but are up against high odds.
Liberals & Nationals are both committed to fixing the Firearms laws. BOTH.
So too are PHON, SFFP, Legalise Marijuanna Party (Dr Brian Walker MLC is a shooter & fought against the bill going through the Upper House) so too Independents Louise Kingston MLC & Ben Dawkins MLC
It morphing to "the first party supporting shooting community"
That too is not helpful & incorrect as it is irrelevent. Again...

To change Government WA needs BOTH Liberals & Nationals to do very well & collectively win 30+ seats.

5) Liberals won't repeal the laws, they only want to review them.
Yes, this is correct but is used as a reason to avoid voting Liberal who we need to do well to change Government.
Its the right thing for the Liberals to promise because that's all there is.
To repeal a party needs to control BOTH houses of Parliament. WA Labor changed the Upper House Electoral process. It used to be 6 regions with 6 MPs and it has always worked well.
Labor changed it to ONE STATEWIDE ELECTORATE. Its a Gerry mander to help elect more Labor MPs in the Upper House.
Labor might not win control of the Upper House but the Liberal Party is unlikely to. Likely it will be Labor controlled or it will be a hung chamber.

Repealing the Act has been left off the table because it's never been on the table. They're committed to a review & the 32,234 signature ePetition to get the Firearms Bill into the Legislation Committee was a Liberal Party ePetition. Despite one Nats Candidate briefly claiming it as a Nats initiative.
So Liberal Party have properly promised what is most likely. 
Somehow they are still getting criticism for "review not repeal" when they can only review & cannot promise a repeal of the Act

This is made odder still because if they solely controlled both houses & did hit the repeal button...they still have to have a review. Some Nationals said they will repeal it. Yeah ok, you haven't got enough candidates to form Government let alone control both houses, you need the Liberals to help change Government & they're set on review & amend. That does not make any sense.

Due to the ePetition, you know for a start the Liberals are clear, any amendment Bill that comes, they'll want their own bill to got to the Legislation Committee.
Repeal is not on the table because its never been on the table. Many are still missing this & undermining chances of a Liberal-National Govt.

To change Government WA needs BOTH Liberals & Nationals to do very well & collectively win 30+ seats.

6) The WA Gun Rally -
No I don't support it. It will serve as a wedge for the Minister & the Government to exploit.
I think it has no positive benefits on offer. It will be an opportunity for the media to cast an unfriendly light on Law Abiding Firearms Owners. Its organised by the Shooters Union which is based in Queensland & the minister has clearly said he will not recognize an eastern states group on WA legislation. Agree or disagree, that's correct approach as a minister.
Yes as a West Aussie you can join, but read their constitution & then try to attend its main meetings. They are board meetings in Queensland.

It is a Not For Profit but its also a small company limited by guarantee meaning it can only be owned by 50 people or less. Now granted this may have changed but that's the only guts of the matter we can find to date. We can assume they chose this structure as it makes them an NFP that isn't incorporated in one state, they'll be recognized as a "registered entity" by ASIC as a Not For Profit. That means they're a NFP like any other but they come under the Corporation Act & they can operate across state borders.

But if you join the rally & you may well have a great day & input (?) but as a member, you don't own the company. I'll be interested to see what level of time the media devotes in the news programmes & how positive, negative, accurate they are.

To be honest it's best outcome is (regardless of who speaks & what they say) it goes ahead and media don't show up at all. If they show up, there is a substantial likelihood it will paint the lawful firearms owners badly.
Some will disagree. There is criticism its brand building & nothing more. Possibly but cannot see the benefits & they're not really mentioned.

Apparently its poster says it will be having speakers who are leaders in the WA Shooting community, but not seen who they are yet. That the speakers will tell attendees how to change the over reach laws.
Well thats already well known. There are several options but first & foremost one is the best & simplest solution and have to happen regardless due to a myriad of other debacles...

To change Government WA needs BOTH Liberals & Nationals to do very well & collectively win 30+ seats. 

7) We need to raise money to start a class action?
Maybe, but those pushing this are never sure which court they aim to be heard in, on what grounds & how long & how much it will cost. Some have said its unconstitutional but when asked is that under the Australian Consitution or WA's constitution Act there is silence.
Then the comments we need to employ a QC. 

There are no QCs or Queens Councel anymore since Queen Elizabeth passed away. They are either King's Councel or Senior Councel or often colloquially referred to as "Silks"
Think its more likely if you think you have a case on whatever grounds you engage a very good law firm & they will assess it first and if/when required they will get a KC/SC involved. 
Just because you haven't read or heard anything DO NOT make the mistake that this avenue hasn't been properly explored & potentially prepared. I honest do not know.
I haven't been told anything one way or the other but no one smart threatens legal action publicly or shows all their cards up front to the court rival. They build whatever strategy they're building & if there's a trigger for legal action, it will be launched without any warning.
In any case legal action may or may not be beneficial (don't guess, we'd all need very good legal advice) & were it launched it would costly & drawn out, possibly for years.
So again the prime focus, the best workable approach is to again remember to focus on...

To change Government WA needs BOTH Liberals & Nationals to do very well & collectively win 30+ seats.

8) But Liberals all voted for the Firearms Bill.
No, false & misleading. in the LA one voted for, one against, one abstained.
In the Upper House 3 voted with the Government, one Abstained, one voted Against I one I'm unsure so I'll find out for sure & edit this.
The Party positions was to vote with the Government which is often a convention. Really favoured when the vote makes no difference & wastes no Parliamentary time UNLESS a division is called. Both cases, it was. So arguably time was wasted to record that which made no difference. Several broke from convention (they're allowed to in the Liberal Party) & people have demonised the Liberals ever since. I haven't go them to read but apparently possibly 2 motions on firearms have been passed over the last few years at State Council (their board meeting effectively) that support Lawful Firearms owners. The motions supported proper legislation & criticised Labor's efforts. I was told by one Liberal one motion was passed at State Conference (their AGM meeting effectively) & another Liberal said he thought there was one in 2024 & one before in 2023 that supported law abiding firearms owners.
Hope I get to confirmation on exactly did or didn't occur. In any case, the way they voted was actually meaningless & irrelevent. Beware those who blame that vote or say the leader has to go. It's kinda rubbish. As for the future of Leader of the Liberal Party, none of my business, the party room decides that & no one else. They are irrelevent points if you want the laws fixed...its simple

To change Government WA needs BOTH Liberals & Nationals to do very well & collectively win 30+ seats.

One last point am I a Liberal or National Party shill?
Hardly, but I'll be ok with being regarded an Anti Labor shill or anti dud legislation shill or anti over reach supporter.

Vote for whoever you want but please remember for positive change on firearms or a dozen other debacles we need to change the Government. 
Government is formed in the Lower House
Whichever party is the next Government they need to win win a minimum of 30 of the 59 seats. So in case you haven't got the point yet...

To change Government WA needs BOTH Liberals & Nationals to do very well & collectively win 30+ seats.

We have to change the Government, everything else is just angels you cannot see dancing on the head of a pin. Very cool, very interesting, captures your attention & yet irrelevent & pointless to changing the Government.

The Last Few Days On Leadership

So the press release is out there, two & a bit pages from the Liberal Party.
Short version, no I don't think there's actually been any moves to replace Libby Mettam as Liberal Party leader.

The fact that one of the journos may have been an ex Labor Staffer should not be taken into any consideration as all media are infallable & not biased ever. For those having trouble detecting sarcasm, that's sarcasm.

106 days out from an election. Much less when you deduct Pre-Polling. That's not a lot of campaigning time but even less when there's the Christmas & New Year period.

First came a story which looks like it came from a leak. Senior Liberals & WANationals meet to agree on a Code of Conduct (CoC). Very big non story except pushed into a story by using words like toxic, division etc & the inferring that no CoC was agreed to signed off on. Who leaked it, I think its easy to guess its one side but the irony is, such a leak would have to against whatever's in the CoC that wasn't signed.

Then now a story on leadership concerns within the Liberals. 
That story does seem like a story & not a report. 
It include detailed quotes with QUOTATION MARKS but no name attached. You would only commit that intellectually bankrupt punctuation crime if you're trying to attach massive emphasis & validation that may not actually exist.

Also one part said unelected candidates wanted to vote on who the leader is to be. Yes who the leader is between now & the election.
The political leader is chosen by those already elected MPs...AND NO ONE ELSE.

NO ONE ELSE EVER

Although people do it, its at best considered extremely poor form to tell a sitting MP who they should elect as leader or deputy. VERY POOR FORM at best & unacceptable at worst.
No aspiring candidate has ever suggested during a campaign they should be able to decide who the leader of the Party Room is. None.
None ever.
I suspect none has now either.

You'd have to get the whole party room to agree to candidates voting on the leader and that's if it isn't against a party's constitution. 
It makes no sense, it didn't happen. No candidate is pushing for that.

Why would it need to happen?
Because the candidates want to vote on leader & its unfair people not recontesting do get to vote?
More rubbish.

The leader of a party, their tenure extends to the next elections or until there's a spill and they lose...which ever comes first. Only a sitting MP can call a spill, only a sitting MP can become leader, only sitting MPs can vote in a leadership spill

So Libby is (Political) Leader of the Liberals Party Room.
The election is March 8th, 2025.
The first Party Room meeting after then, elected MPs will decide who the leader is after all positions are made vacant. That's when the candidates (if they get elected) get to vote on the Leader.
Nope this is BS pro Labor sent story to rattle swing voters & suggest instability

If you cannot smell BS in the Media Story please get in touch, I have a bridge for sale in Sydney & for a little extra I'll throwa unique shell shaped opera house & a HQ Statesman once owned by Elvis himself.

Can you see the circular absurdity, the Party Room has to agree (if they constitutionally can) let all candidates in to vote on the leader? Why so they have the numbers and unseat the leader? Well they'd clearly have if they voted the candidates in to stack the vote wouldn't they
No. it is absurd.
Utterly absurd

NO CANDIDATE EVER SERIOUSLY EXPRESSED THAT THEY SHOULD VOTE ON THE LEADER. DID NOT HAPPEN.

Either someone expressed some frustration OR a fiction writer is pretending to be a reporter.
There is nor was nor ever will be a plan to let candidates into a party to vote on a Party Room leader.

Why would this dog that can't hunt even be able to get on its feet?

This is Try The Get The Zak Kirkup Tactic 2.0 Running Flat Out

This 100% deflects all attention off WA Labor and yes this is where I'd list all the very sketchy Acts of Legislation that Labor grotesquely punched through & avoid full debate, any amendment of Committee review.

Or all the deals that only involved one entity, that were unique & not replicable with costs hidden behind "commercial in confidence" 
There's no commercial advantage to protect if its a unique one off deal & cannot be replicated. It only protects the costs from accountibility & kills integrity.

Or the gerrymandering effect hoped for by converting the Legislative Council to One Vote, One Value when there were absolutely no instances of the rural regional areas being unfairly advantaged over WA's Metro citizens where the majority of WA lives. NONE.
Not one, none.
Oddly WA Labor are not pushing for One Vote, One Value for the Australian Senate.
Why? Well if you did that the majority of senators would come from NSW, Victoria & Queensland in that order & we'd have no real representation in the Senate.
Why is that different...Senate can increase or decrease money to WA but no effect on the number of extra Labor politicians that could be elected to the WA Upper House.

And all the drivel talk about Basil Zemplis replacing Libby Mettam as leader, what rubbish.
People spouting that tosh clearly get all their cardio exercise from jumping to false conclusions & running off at the mouth. Although I suspect many of them are sock puppet accounts of Labor layembers & staffers.

Basil is a candidate, he cannot be the Liberal Party's Political Leader.
In fact unless somehow the Party Leader came from the Upper House this time there's only 2 alternatives.
David Honey who is not recontesting & Merome Beard.
Merome Beard won her seat as a National candidate in September 2022 & left the Nats to become a Liberal in October 2023. To only be a Liberal MP for 13 months and become Party leader...no. Pretty unlikely but more likely she doesn't want to replace Libby or she would have caused a spill by now.
So yeah it's a bulldust yarn unless something huge changes since the creation of this fictional matter.

Come polling day, Political Party positions will be made vacant & elected MPs will vote on Leader, Deputy, Whip and whatever else.

Yeah stop being fooled.
Stop inadvertantly fooling others.
Or if you're with the Labor Party...yup, we see you, not fooled

Papalia, McGowan & Cook & the Firearms Reforms Disaster

The day after what the WA Media called a very successful WA Liberal State Conference, Paul Papalia ON A SUNDAY announced that licenced firearms owners in WA would have to undergo regular mental health checks. Timing of the announcement coincidence or deliberate?
Do you hear many Ministers make media announcements on Legislative announcements a Sunday?
Many? 
Any? Can you come up with any?
Cynically I think it was clearly to steal oxygen from the Liberal Party who looked to have reached a positive turning point. It worked in steal media attention but...

Mental Health Professionals say many clinical hours are required to develop a patients baseline BEFORE a diagnosis is possible. Lets work on 10 hours because its a round number, you pick you own number. Times that by 90,000 licenced firearms owners.
That's 900,000 clinical hours on a "ongoing" basis. Lets work on a Psychologist working 1600 hours a year. That's 562 full time Psychologists that will be required on top of however many we have now.
Oh, the baseline hours for diagnosis too high? Well maybe but hey lets say it magically takes 60 minutes...that's 90,000 clinical hours. That's 56 Full Time clinical Psychologists we'll need on top of what we already have JUST to administer to law abiding licenced owners.
Even though strident anti gun lobby out of the east coast universities stated years ago that mental health checks do not have the ability to predict criminal behaviour in advance.

Strike 1 Minister.

The minister overseas a flash media press event where police fire a rifle, a big rifle.
A 50 calibre rifle which requires a 6km safety envelope for the rifle to be fired into.
So it can only be fire in regional WA. What threat are they expecting in the bush that requires such a massive operational firearm? The 50 BMG type firearms that cost between $12,000 & $20,000+ to buy, has a bipod & a top end Nightforce $2000-5000 rifle scope and the ammunition costs between $15 and $30 per shot. 
It appears so far its only use was the media press event.
Yes, they were legally owner by the public for strict, highly regulated club competitions on a remote range east of Carnarvon. No crime has ever been committed using one of these firearms.

Strike 2 Minister

The range the firearm it where it was fired for the media was on the outskirts of Perth. It was & is not rated for the 50 calibre. That's correct, it is not allowed to be fired on that range & the unconfirmed claim is the actual club that run that range hired it out to WA Police but weren't told a 50 calibre rifle would be fired there. There was only one club gun range in WA rated & lawful for this firearm. That's 100+km east of Carnarvon. The safety envelope at the Pindar range is barely 6kms & in the direction they were firing is Pindar Power Station. On top of that, the RAAF were required to stand down all flying aircraft whilst WAPol Media fired the rifle for the TV cameras.

Strike 3 Minister

The Minister & Premier McGowan mentioned they need guns off the streets. Then someone, either the Minister or a member of his department leaked a street map showing the locations of firearms owners in Perth. IT WAS PRINTED ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE NEWSPAPER.
Now there's unconfirmed reports that there's been break ins on some of those homes within that map. If the newspaper put a map on the front page showing the location of WA MP's homes there'd quite rightly be a massive furore. It would be unacceptable to say the least. If it was supplied by a Minister or someone in their dept there'd have to be a parliamentary inquiry & likely someone's losing their job as a minister or dept official. Motive? Political capital, public support for Reforms that don't Reform

Strike 4  Minister

A large group of lawful firearms owner groups get together. They form the WA Firearms Community Alliance (WAFCA). Instead of groups competing for time with the Minister, potentially undermining each other & creating the perfect landscape for wedge politics, they have a one stop lobbying shop for LAWFUL firearms owners. It includes all sorts of stakeholders. Retailers, collectors, repairers, competition shooters, recreational hunters, pest controllers both professional & unpaid. And yes even included Primary Producers.

Now imagine my surprise, my stunned shock when straight after the WAFCA is formed the Police Minister announces a "Primary Producers Firearms Advisory Board". If "divide & conquer" was a thing, if undermining fair & orderly lobbying was a thing then creating another group & hand picking all of its members is a strategic must. He picks who's on it, he chairs it. No minutes from the meetings are available. One of the Primary Producer groups was a member of the WAFCA alliance but that lasted a few days when a choice spot for them where they appear & sit in the ministers office instead of being a small tooth on a cog behind the scenes. No matter the Primary Producer groups didn't know what the VPF List was. No matter they didn't know anything about any of the calibres on the list were. No matter they were not even aware of the Law Reform Commission report or its recommendations. Most notably Recommendation #54 on Page 55 that clearly says NOT to introduce restrictions of numbers of firearms owned. Out of their depth, clueless and understatement.
Outcome is that minister says he's bringing in Law Reform Commission recommendations when in reality he brings in planned clauses that completely against the Law Reform Commission Report. Undermines the National Firearms Agreement & declares registered firearms owners will be limited in the amount of firearms they can own. 10 for primary producers, 5 for general public. Right then & ever since the evidential research & reasoned explanation on how those plucked out numbers...completely missing.
No regard for the TWO PRIME TESTS a firearms applicant across Australia must address. All the current framework now thrown out by the minister. Applicant must be a fit & proper person (checked & approved/rejected by police) and the applicant must have a genuine need (checked & approved/rejected by police).
This is against the Law Reform Commission recommendations & the basis for the entire National Firearms Agreement and all states government processes.
Should add, one Primary Producer group did join & back the WAFCA. That was WA Grains Group.
We're yet to find any Primary Producer groups outside the 5 picked who were invited. No Sheep Stud Breeder groups, no landcare groups, no farm improvement groups, no LGA's. The majority of WA Producers are not members of the 5 groups selected. Those selected were...

Pastoralists & Graziers Association of WA
WA Farmers
Wines of WA
Kimberley Pilbara Cattlemens Association 
VegetableWA

I kid you not. I also note the Chairman of Wines WA board at the time of the PFFAB being formed was WAFarmers CEO Trevor Whittington. At the time the PFFAB being formed he was announced as the Wines WA delegate on the PFFAB. I make no accusations nor inference about Wines WA having a conflict of interest but unless they brought a elusive skill to the table they should have maintained arms length appearance. They being a group that was then receiving $3 million in state government funding & a further $500,000 in April 2024. It was announced Mr Whittington was to be Wines WA delegate but by the time the PFFAB met it was 4 possibly 5 months after Mr Whittington was replaced as the chairman of the Wines WA board.
I don't think any law was broken but the appearances of no conflict of interest was not managed properly. 
Vegetables WA...no don't get that either. 

Here's the thing if there was not an aim to divide & conquer why set a board with 2 players always at odds with one another, trying to out do each other?
Why include a NW Cattle group that is an off shoot of the 2 groups at odds with each other?
Why include a heavily state funded group who's chairman is also CEO of one the 2 groups at odds with each other?
Why include a vegetable group at all?

Why send 5 delegates?
Why not send 1-3 to represent all groups?
Why not open membership to all primary producers stakeholders, let them meeting aside & they pick 1-3 people to lobby for the entire industry? 
Because...who knows but if there was ever a plan to adopt tactics of Wedge Politics, divide & conquer THIS would be a masterclass example.

What recommendations we have found that the PFFAB member groups took to their meetings, well they're poor to say the very least.

Strike 5 Minister

The VPF Debacle. VPF is the "Very Powerful Firearms" list, the listed firearms that then banned. Only WA uses this list, no precise criteria for what makes the list is available. No statistical data showing how many of these firearms have been involved in WA Gun Crime...EVER. Best we can find is none.
One on the list was a less than successful WW2 gun that uses a heavily modified case of 50 Cal brass (necked and belted) 
The gun and its ammunition went out of production during WW2 and never made available to the public. The 2 that were legally owned in WA were in private collections under a collectors licence. With that licence you cannot possess the ammunition, it is illegal to fire the gun. They were bought as part of superannuation investments. No ammunition exists, none made for it since WW2 & the gun was dropped from service because back then, ammunition was a problem & the firearm wasn't as good as was hoped. It went out of service before the war ended. The owner's couldn't mail or courier the gun to the eastern states to sell...as Australia Post can mail it but won't & there's only a couple of couriers able to shift it & they weren't keen. The owners most likely would have to acquire permits & to whichever state had a buyer.  Eventually, due to lobbying from the WAFCA it was removed from the banned list but the list criteria and related crime stats still not forthcoming.
One member group was asked about the "55 Boys" ban & they didn't even know what "55 Boys" meant, didn't even know what "VPF" stood for. When explained they knew nothing of the list or the firearms that had been banned nor why. 
That's the level of stakeholder delegates on the PFFAB.

Strike 6 Minister

Property Letter Debacle - Yes one primary producer was selling letters, lots of them and would have made a sizable amount of money doing it. Guess what? Not acceptable but not illegal. WA is the only jurisdiction using the Property Letter system. Many of Primary Producers have been asked for a letter from avid shooters, hunters & said no. Some said yes, some said yes an awful lot. What does it mean? It means the permission letter debacle was a complete joke, should be scrapped & we should run similar systems to the eastern states. It was introduced, we think to make it more restrictive to get a firearm & yet quite the opposite happened. Some legally made money out it. Just drop the letter system Minister, he didn't, he needed another thing to flex at. He's going to amend the system that needed to be dropped. He doesn't listen. Consultation? Yes there is consultation but its token, he doesn't listen to stake holders nor represent their interests. Its like he views stakeholders as people he rules, like he's an officer in the Armed Forces and stakeholders are the lowest ranked of the enlisted.

Strike 7 Minister

Gun Crime Stats 1 - Notable we can look up all the WA Crime Stats & its fairly extensive however if this is an important rewrite of an out of date, 50+ year old Act of Parliament then the Crime States should break off Gun Crime Statistics into a seperate & very accessible list. At present the true nuts n bolts stats are...well they're somewhere. The Stats the minister used to suggest regular mental health checks were interesting. He mentioned the number of homicides, then the amount that involved a gun. I believe he said 10 of them involved mental health issues. How did he know, coroner's report or was he able to access private health records. And exactly how many were suicides? Suicides are horrible & we should do everything we can with our currently broken & depleted mental health system to reduce the chances of suicides. But they're not homicides & yet they are put into homicides. 
THEN THERE'S AN EVEN WORSE TWIST.
Now we're being told that of those gun deaths that involved mental health issues, some of them were tragically serving WA Police Officers who used their service firearm. 
Unconfirmed but if this is true there is a very big problem that needs addressing & isn't going to be if reforms due to deaths target law abiding citizens.

(Late Edit - 14th of May, Peter Collier MLC was requesting statistics, clear data & still getting nothing during debate. Some requests were outstanding from last November. SO there is a Bill that is being put through parliament & those who built the Bill do not have any data or statistics to support radical changes. There is still no evidential research explaining why the new number of firearms is set at that number. There's been several requests & the replies have varied but include among them that it would require a reallocation of  staff to find those statistics. So a Bill was built, without the statistics/data. That's not reform, that's not objective. That's not testable. That's gut reaction or its cluelessly been made up on the spot. That's not fair, wise fit for purpose legislation)

Strike 8 Minister

Gun Crime Stats 2 - What is the most common firearm used in gun crime? What percentages are stolen, smuggled in, illegallay manufactured or lawful guns used by licenced owners?
These statistics are absolutely vital to tailor make the new reforms to actual help reduce crime, injuries & deaths. Absent. Completely lacking & in the ether somewhere

Stirke 9 Minister

Reforms & the 50+ year old Act Part 1 - Its misleading & quite disengenuous to say the Act is out of date being this old. We have Acts dated back to the early part of last century. All acts are not as they were first tabled & passed. Acts are amended if & when required. Amendments are listed on the Act. Many parts of firearms restrictions ARE NOT Acts of Parliament but Acts of Adminstration or as we know them, regulations. As such they can be changed & improved by the stroke of the Minister's pen and do not go before the Parliament.
Like massive rise in firearms fees in 2022. One of them was raised by 96%
As for rewriting the Act, this one is going the way of a similar incident of a 50+ year old Act that need a complete rewrite. The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act. We got a dumpster fire Act that Labor rushed through both houses of parliament it controlled & the mess it created caused it to be wholly put in the bin

Strike 10 Minister

Reforms & the 50 year old Act Pt 2 - The minister has claimed they make no apologies for bringing in the "toughest gun laws in Australia" 
Notice the operative word "toughest" because he plans on being the tough on lawful owners instead of targeting criminals. 
Reforms are supposed to be fair improvements for all stakeholders & strike a reasonable balance.
That is not the minister's aim at all.

Fair and Wise would be sticking to the Law Reform Commission recommendations & sticking with the National Firearms Agreement

It appears the improvements with the  Port Arthur response was in vain.
A fair reform would be WA have fees that reflect the average fees of all Australian States & Territories excluding WA. 
A fair reform would be if you trade in an old .22 & you which to replace it with a new .22 it's a like for like trade in. You shouldn't have to get an application like you have no firearm at all.
Simple pathway, the dealer transfers it, its reported to police for their records. You cannot possess both old & new at the same time if its a trade in.
The firearm you trade in, whoever buys your gun has to pay an application fee. Whilst you buying a mere replacement don't have to go thru a new application with paper work, fees & police approval.
If you keep the firearm & repair upgrade it, no fees...no paperwork for firearms branch.
That there is no reform allowing simple like for like is madness & costly over reach with no benefit for anyone. 

Strike 11 Minister

Reforms & the 50 year old Act Pt 3 - The appearance clause. If you have a rifle & you change the stock the absurdity is 2 fold. Despite a rifle & stock manufactirer having online tutorials on how to undo 2 screws & one bolt to swap the stock...IN WA YOU HAVE TO TAKE IT TO A GUNSMITH TO DO IT LEGALLY. 

That is absurd & should be "reformed"
Want to swap triggers out for competition? Need a gunsmith no matter how simple it is, how experienced you are. You're breaking the law.
Other absurdity is if a police officer decides your rifle with the new stock fitted now "looks" military like to them, its a now an illegal firearm, its a prohibited weapon. Even though the stock only improves ergonomics which increases safety, helps accuracy...more safety its illegal. Even though it does not increase the magazine capacity. Even though it does not increase the firing rate. Even though it doesn't alter the power of the projectile. Even though it now allows easier attachment of accesories like a light and/or optics (more safe again)...if a police officer with subjective judgement decides it looks military like in appearance, its illegal, its a prohibited firearm. You are breaking the law.
Appearance clause must be removed if its reform time. Reforms must be fair & reasonable.

Strike 12 Minister.

Well its Tuesday Feburary 13th 2024. We'll take a break on this for a while & then come back and see what else we've missed. For now there's 12 strikes of fail by the WAPolice minister just on this one Bill to Parliament. Remember a Minister is supposed to be a public servant, not a lofty public ruler. He or she is supposed to serve us with the best legislative over sight possible. 
We're not seeing this here.

Now someone is going to say that more guns means more gun crime so we need less guns as soon as possible. Thats not automatically true & not reflect in what little Firearms Statistics the minister is sharing.
To that end, I'll just leave this here...also bear in mind Mexico is so thoroughly regulated it can take nearly a year to get a lawful gun AND they have only one gun shop in the entire nation.