Barnaby Joyce's Christmas Message

Firstly, whilst it might have been on Christmas Eve, it wasn't really a Christmas message, but boy oh boy did people lose their minds. The attacks were fast & furious, some saying he was drunk, mental illness suggestions, comments on his personal appearance. It was all very unseemly and I guess everyone gets a bit personal with public figures at times but with Barnaby Joyce there was a real pile on.

A real pile on him personally but no one tackled the actual points he made, of which there were 6.

1. He’s feeding cattle on Xmas Eve 

2. Climate IS changing

3. A new tax isn’t going to change it back

4. He wants the government to stop interfering in people’s lives

5. Respect God or you’re a fool & it’s not going to go well 

What we saw was lots of “argumentum ad hominem”

Another factor in the fires over east, is the political weaponization of the fires. There's several factors here, 80 of those factors...arsonists. Whether or not there's increased fuel loads due to departmental policies & management (also not explored) or whether or not there's increased catastrophic fire conditions both earlier and longer...also not mentioned.

Seems enough convenient facts is all you need to make a point.

The hate for Barnaby Joyce is real in some circles, its real and very deep and generally the haters are often left leaning people. Thing is he's still very popular in his electorate, he was re-elected in a by-election & a federal election.

When I saw the video I watched it, but I assumed it was aimed at an audience I wasn't part of. Didn't worry me, thought it was interesting but nothing to get ramped up & rail against.

I'll wait until I see people address the 6 points he made, but if he has a mental illness or drink problem as some of his detractors infer then maybe laying off him would be a better thing to do. Drink & mental health unfortunately was used as a way to demonise him. I don't think ANYONE should demonise ANYONE over drink or mental health issues whether they're real or concocted.

I say I don't know why anyone would lose their minds over his video, but I do think I know. Sadly irrespective of whether you like or hate him, that sort of ugly pile on was not how people should conduct themselves.

But humans with their false indignation & outrage get very ugly

MPs Allowance Scandal & THAT laptop

So, ex-Liberal MP Phil Edman was investigated by the CCC over misuse of his electoral allowances and the results are in, its unsavoury & well below any pub test to say the very least.

If what I'm told is correct (and I'm understanding it right), a complaint was laid & the CCC investigated. If a complaint was not laid they would not have. I'm waiting to hear if that's correct for whatever that's worth, but it seems that's what the CCC isn't conducting a full investigation into ALL the WA MPs to see what's been done.

That and then there'd be the seriously dangerous precedent of over reach and the loss of Parliamentary Privilege. Yes the threat to that Privilege is serious and the implications are huge & wide. It means genuine actions & discussions held in confidence to help a legislator perform their duties are over. It will ham string legislators, it will also mean all whistleblowers or victims will not come forward. There may also be from time to time confidential briefings from law enforcement, security agencies, victim groups, a wide range of groups that need to be able to talk freely with the legislators. That will kill all candor because then the MPs laptops & briefing notes etc are loudspeakers to the public.

Worth mentioning at this point in time (19/12/2019) ex MP Phil Edman has been found to been declared by the CCC to have committed Serious Misconduct but at this point, that's actually not a criminal offence. Police will no doubt look very closely to see what laws have been broken and if it they consider there have been they'll lay criminal charges. That may or may not happen (because I can't see the future) but the process is rolling as one would & should expect.

My understanding is the CCC has not pursued any other MP because at this stage no complaint has been lodged. The CCC gained the laptop but it was legally taken back by the Upper House because it was thought to have been in breach of Parliamentary Privilege.

So its worth remembering...

1) That there are Upper House MPs who actually don't support Mr Edman or his actions at all but want the laptop away from the CCC solely because of the over reach effect on Parliamentary Privilege and the immense damage it will do to the abilities of the Parliament to perform its functions properly & in the best interests of the state.

2) The CCC wants the laptop because, among other things, there's a high likelihood there's information that may lead to other instances of serious misconduct, potentially criminal offences either by Mr Edman and/or others.

3) Now ideally balancing 1) and 2) would be the aim and I imagine that's what the court is doing now, trying to reach a balance that achieves CCC aims without undermining Parliamentary Privilege but there next "variable" is there looks to be some Labor MPs who want the laptop given to the CCC for political gain. Sue Ellery got into a Twitter exchange about the slow pace of the VAD amendments where another Labor MP called it "truly an affront to democracy"...it wasn't and concerns me that Sue Ellery didn't correct her or the lower house MP didn't "get it" before her twitter attack. Ironically if the VAD had been rubber stamped 55 amendments would not have been put through to strengthen the bill, the Upper House (the House of Review) would not have done its job and all facets of seriousness would not have been looked by legislators and the Parliament effectively would have been side stepped with changes then done by bureaucrats behind a shroud controlled by a government department and a minister/cabinet. So some Labor MPs sense the whiff of Liberal Party blood in the water, with possibly even the possibility of not only political damage the opposition but slim chance of getting some Liberal MPs being forced to resign if they're guilty of serious misconduct.

So I see both sides. There needs to be a way that the CCC gets the information it needs, if it exists and then maintaining parliamentary privilege. This will be intensely difficult and there are Labor Upper House MPs who see this Parliamentary over reach problem and do not support the CCC having full access & control to all sensitive material.

Its a serious landmark moment for democracy and I don't expect either Sue Ellery MLC or Labor's Jessica Stojkowski MLA to understand or to care since they're so party politically driven.

As for the actually spending of allowances, I've spoken with 6 MPs all from different parties (none from the Greens) and there is a lot of reporting about the spending by MPs and a report is lodged with the Australian Tax Office. They have a lot of work to be done explaining their spending TAX WISE, but not so much on what's prudent & in the electorate/state's best interests. I think that's a separate matter and gives rise to a full review & reform of the MPs reporting standards to streamline it so its sensible and reasonably oriented towards achieving compliance but not being so onerous that extra staff are required for the reporting function.

Again that is a separate issue and if it were already in place much of the lavish pleasure spending might have been prevented. There will need to be a review into reforming the system to making it workable for all involved AND being able to engender compliance.

For now, we have a lap top that has the potential to alter the foundation of parliamentary privilege which is a huge negative effect & to use Jessica Stojkowski MLA's words in an actually useful way, "truly an affront to democracy"

We don't know if the information within the laptop will hit ex MPs or currently sitting MPs. I suspect Sue Ellery is just keen on political damage and some Labor MPs do harbour huge resentment for the Upper House & would be happier if it were abolished. I can see by the Queensland example, no house of review comes with a great negative cost often.

So how this plays out is still unclear, it will play out in the courts.
There needs to be a mechanism that allows for access to information that shows Crime/Corruption activity by an MP without demolishing Parliamentary Privilege. I thought we had that with the Committees structure but maybe not.

So yes I would happily like to see any MP of any political stripe convicted of any criminal charges they're guilty of. I'd like to see any MP declared to have committed serious misconduct to be referred to WA Police to see if charges are warranted. All without Fear nor Favour but at the same time without any threat to Parliamentary Privilege.

This will be some time unfolding but...we just have to wait and be patient because despite Sue & Jessica's view on things, Democracy must be thorough, legal, reasonable and not constrained by a timeline or any other arbitrary whim that suits any party or MP.

My best guess, the courts will NOT look at the content at all in making a decision. My guess is the courts will look at whether or not releasing the lap top will undermine Parliamentary Privilege ONLY.

That will probably have to take primary or only focus.

I'm not even sure if the Upper House can open the lap top to start an investigation of their own.

Socialism, Boris Johnson and all that jazz...

In the shadow of the UK's biggest landslide there's a lot to look at. There's a generation war. A large majority of younger voting people voted for Corbyn, despite his silence on Brexit & past support of Hamas, the IRA. Add in his deep fondness & support for the Venezuelan socialist regime that's turned one of the world's richest resource laden nations into a country of crime, poverty, starvation & death.
The older generation it went the other way, big majority of the older voters voted against the Greens & Labour with the result being their nation isn't out of the woods but they dodge an almighty kryptonite bullet.

Now a friend who's a big advocate of socialism saw my brief twitter exchange with a government employed pro socialism chappy (who I've never met).

Short version I learned that Venezuela is of course the victim of the USA trade attacks, socialism is the only financial & societal saviour and socialism in Australia and the west is somehow different because its "Democratic Socialism"

By putting another word in front of socialism it doesn't change what socialism is. Its still the Marxist arsenic to every society its ever been taken up by. I'm still waiting to find a society where Socialism has turned out better than capitalism.

Yes, a well paid public servant in WA genuinely feels capitalism is the problem that cannot be solved any way except the introduction of socialism. Now apparently public health, a police force, government workers are all a result of socialism. And yet that's not true. Our police & health sector are not political party based. We have not seen a push by anyone to privatise the police force. These community services are rightly paid for by the public and no we don't have some capitalist anarchy here. These utilities are here due to fair reasoning, due to our society having a proper democracy.

Democratic Socialism is just a stage where more people voluntarily advocate for Socialism & demonise Capitalism. Is one bad and the other good? Yes, but as good as capitalism is, even being a quantum realm in from of Socialism, its not perfect and it never will be.

Humans are involved.

My friend though took up the cudgels and waxed on how Capitalism was evil, should be destroyed and the people should own everything. Now this was interesting so I asked her to name a very prominent billionaire she felt was part of the problem. She did and remarked how its only about that person's greed for more money that drives them, to own more and ensure others own less.

Its not quite true. If you're a billionaire I don't think you're at all interested in making a loss but its not about making the money either. It's about being driven for achieving and creating success. Profits are after a while only a measuring stick. If you can afford luxury homes all over the world, travel to exotic places, have all the trapping of obscene wealth is that a bad thing?

Apparently. Thing is Mr X the multi billionaire isn't like Scrooge McDuck with a vault full of cash he opens and does back stroke through whilst not spending a cent on the needy. I asked my friend "What do you think Mr X the billionaire does with his money exactly?"

The reply was he starts more businesses so he can expand his obscene wealth, increases his assets to make more money to own more and more plus a lavish disgracefully over the top life style.

Now we're getting somewhere. "So is he employing people in all these businesses, is he buying products, equipment, land, paying electricity, water, rates, taxes employing managers, finances staff, workers on workshop floors, maintenance, security...or is he hoarding wealth so no one else can have it?"

The reply was "Its never enough with them, they want to ow everything and keep people down and in servitude"

Mr billionaire X opened a new factory and created 300 direct jobs, bought millions of dollars of equipment of companies that make things and employ people in the process. The aim is to yes make profits, which go where?

More reinvestment. That's capitalism. The freedom to make a good money either as an entrepreneur or a staff member. Not fair, the worker does all the work? Well yes to a point but who bought the land, spent money on developing it into a factory, paid for the fit out & installation of equipment, training of staff...

Trouble is everyone wants to be Bill Gates or Bono. Both are extremely rich people. They're business people freely part taking in commerce & capitalism. They might make a few lefty sounds now & then, the might even give millions away but they are thoroughly capitalists.

They both employ an awful lot of people who would not be doing great were the capitalists replaced by socialists.

As someone said, get a teacher to tell a class that at the end of the year everyone will get the same grade no matter how good or bad they did. Everyone will get the exact same net average of the class's educational performance. Most will do less, some will realise they're holding up some who decided to do nothing at all & some are getting rewarded same as the hardest working even if they're asleep during every lesson and miss every exam.

Its also seen where some sports events kids get participation awards, there is no scoring, no one has the reason to try hard or excel or to push themselves.

A valuable life lesson is in the bin and we herd people towards democratic socialism that pretends to have delivered great things and instead is the politics of envy, theft and is the very poison to people seeking to do & be their best.

Voluntary Assisted Dying Part II

Well its done & dusted. There's no more tear filled comments, no more crackly voices heaping accolades on one another. No more applause & emotional groans, now its time for a more practical look at what was. Glory basking time is over.

So its passed as I think everyone thought it would, given not only the Government numbers but the general feel of many of those in both Chambers of WA Parliament. It didn't have unanimous support but I think every knew it would eventually pass regardless. It was obvious, it was expected & I don't think anyone, even its biggest critics thought otherwise.

That's why I think...

1) There was no filibustering at all. It was a surprise to me it got passed before Christmas, I always expected it would be on the table until next February. Not the case. Both sides of both chambers did extra hours to get over the ground. But it was not anything other than the Upper House doing its job & doing it properly.
IT IS THE HOUSE OF REVIEW.

Remember for a moment, the Government declared it was a good bill when it passed the Legislative Assembly and that it needed no amendment. Well no & had that happened an awful lot of the legal detail would have been decided in the implementation phase. That is behind a busy shroud away from the Parliament by bureaucrats in departments headed up by WALabor Ministers. Too much would have been jerked away from full scrutiny and any issues that arose would have to be raised by members in the Parliament...where the Government under scrutiny had the numbers. Say whatever you like about VAD, say what ever you like about Nick Goiran but fact is, we need full scrutiny at a forensic level to allow Democracy to shine. Did it work 100%? No...rarely does. But it wasn't the Premier's quick rubber stamp.

Worse still the Upper House passed 55 amendments, 23 from Labor, which really flies as a great egg into the Lower House Labor MP's faces and the Preimers that showed how badly wrong they were either by fault or decision. I think decision, because I think Labor is very much of the mind that more that done at the departmental level & less via the Parliament the better...for Labor

2) Then there's Alyssa Hayden MLA (Liberal) who tried valiantly in the Lower House to exercise the arm of democracy in the Lower House. She even commented on how she was sledged that her comments were stupid & silly. Some of those trains of thought were not ignored by the Upper House, not thought as silly & stupid and were woven into the amendments. I've said before its no coincidence that whilst the National Party doesn't interfere in factions, groups or any other part of other parties they did in great numbers man the booths during the by-election for Alyssa's seat supporting her & handing out How-To-Vote cards. Nationals ran no candidate but saw her election was vital for a fairer democratic outcome for the wider state. Still stands tall as a sensible move on the Nationals part.

3) There there's Adele Farina MLA (Labor) who is pro VAD but voted against the bill because she wasn't fully convinced it had full harm reduction woven in...worse still for so called "fans of democracy on the left", she was pressured to vote with the government even though it was a conscience vote & to her credit whether we agree with her vote or not, she used her conscience vote as its designed, not how her party's over reaching crowd decided. Not overly surprised, the left has "over reach" deeply sewn into its DNA.

4) As mentioned before the twitter exchange between Labor MPs Sue Ellery MLC & Jessica Stojkowski MPs where Jessica describe the slow pace as "truly an affront to democracy" - In short "NO". In fact it was voted down early to refer the bill to a legislative committee where far deeper scrutiny & legal advise could be used to get a more water tight & safe Bill sorted and THEN present it to the Upper House, freeing up the Upper House to go on with other business that's been waiting in line for sometime. So there really was no choice, Nick Goiran and others either rolled over and permitted a shrouded ministerial mess or he (and others) stood up and locked in as many improvements and safeguards against loop hole abuse as possible.
Jessica probably need to brush up on the many facets of Democracy and also the rights & responsibilities of being a MP. Failing to exercise those rights IS a failure of responsibility and I applaud the Upper House for serving Democracy and applaud some of those without the numbers in the Lower House for trying.

5) Sad fact is in this whinge fest grotesquely using the word democracy in a hideously twisted form is we still don't see any apology for the bullying of members by other MPs, we don't see the Premier and others concede they should never have pushed for a rubber stamp, no amendment bill nor anyone say actually democracy won out. It may not be the result everyone wanted, but democracy won out. Democracy would have suffered a severe disservice had the Premier & the Labor Government got its preferred pathway and now he's crowing like a braggart that "We did it".
No democracy did it & had the Labor Government done it would have been passed after a few hours sitting and would be put together behind a minister's door. This is one of his stranger back flips and he's had a lot.
6) Other odious part is one of the Labor critics who sledged the Upper House doing its job properly sat in the Lower House and although there was in excess of 150 hours of debate on the Bill, she offered less than 12 minutes on the floor & on the final day, she barely entered the Lower House at all. In fact most of the people who filed in & helped nearly fill the chamber all came in during the last 5 Amendments...and sat silent. They were not there to comment or amend, they were there because Peter Watson MLA, the Speaker of the House had allowed the Media to attend the House to record the significant passing of a landmark bill. I have no problem with the press being there, it seems reasonable & correct. Just a pity that some people only showed up on the last day to catch the camera action. I am surprised they didn't call for a division to get their name recorded.

The Premier gave his speech, no one apologised to Alyssa Hayden, to Adele Farina, to Nick Goiran and to everyone else who exercised their duties to democracy.
Also is the poor explanation to the public. There are not 100s of safeguards. There are eligibility criteria and THEN there's safeguard. Most are eligibility criteria. Most people who have had elderly friends or family in distress in their final days won't be comforted when they learn that many of their dying loved ones wouldn't have been eligible under this legislation.

Most of the public eager for this are operating under the misunderstanding that it's now law & will be up & running soon. No.
The implementation phase is expected to take 18 months but the length of time that takes is very much up to the minister, the Premier & cabinet.

It will be operational most like just prior to the next State election. (Just let that sink in)

Voluntary Assisted Dying Passes the Upper House and now...

VAD, not all it seems...

 24 September 2019 The WALabor Government's leader, the WA Premier said — "This is good legislation. It is very well drafted and carefully considered. The government has devoted a huge amount of resources to this bill. It does not require amendment".Now his pressure inferred was, no amendments, rubber stamp it in the Upper House & send it back so we can rubber stamp it with our numbers in the Lower House and rush it through without any alteration at all.

Roger Cook MLA, the WALBor Health Minister went from a respectful middle ground approach BEFORE the Premier's comments to going off the deep end a bit & wanting a solid quick analysis to get the job done quick smart, he said - “The fact they have sought the call, moved so many motions and asked so many often repetitive questions really just shows they’ve got contempt for the public” 

 “There’s no reason they cannot do a solid piece of analysis and scrutiny of the Bill without unduly delaying it … now is the time they get on with it and finish the job.”

Some how amendments weren't needed yet 55 amendments were made & lets break them down and ponder on them...

25 came from Nick Goiran MLA        (Lib)
18 came from the Government           (ALP)
6 came from Martin Aldridge MLA    (Nats)
4 came from Adele Farina                   (ALP)
1 came from Martin Pritchard             (ALP)
1 came from Alison Xamon                 (Greens)

So the WA Labor Premier has quite a bit of egg on his face.

a) Of the 55 Amendments that were apparently not required according to the Premier, 23 came from his own Government (Labor Party).

b) Adele Farina MLA (ALP) was in support of Voluntary Assisted Dying voted against the bill because in her words "When I put that question to myself, I came to the answer that I just cannot do it. I know that a lot of people will be very disappointed by that, but I cannot put people in harm’s way. In the full knowledge that my vote will make no difference to the bill passing, I have decided to err on the side of protection of the vulnerable and those who will not get the promised peaceful and pain-free death and to vote against the bill at the third reading."

c) There's a number of concerns for the Government to address, how much in the implementation phase will be sorted by bureaucrats and not have any input by the parliament? Definitely some & we're talking about legislation that seeks to make legal the supply of poison to a person so they may take their own life.

d) There's concerns the amount of data collected is insufficient for the process to be constantly improving. During debate we heard of several people in other jurisdictions that either did not die, or did not die well or peacefully. One taking 88 hours to finally die. Its why the Netherlands overseeing body collects and interprets data to ensure that the taken life is one done so humanely, quietly and as pain free as possible.

e) There are the concerns that a medical practitioner or doctor may not be able to be a conscientious  objector to the practice, he/she will have no choice.

f) A specialist is not required to end you life, why? Because there'd be an added cost of making a specialist available to those in rural & regional WA, a cost the Government who wanted this bill did not want to pay for. I'm at a loss as to why a properly qualified specialist could not be flown to where ever needed in WA, because the best estimates are its unlikely that even as many as 50 people will take up the VAD option and of those who do, a proportion will pull out. So we're not talking 50 patients a year in regional WA. It might be very few.

Now it goes to the Lower House. Now we'll see more stupid comments about denying or delaying WA people an option. Which is odd as the Bill will pass now & as for delaying, best estimates for the VAD system going live (no pun intended) will be 12-18 months time. Add to that many people are going to be very disappointed because the VAD is not what they think, eligibility is very very small.

Now had this gone to a legislative committee as Rick Mazza & others hoped for, the Upper House would have been freed up, and the work would have been done with some of the many glitches they identified corrected.

Its not perfect, its got some serious concerns within it. Will they be corrected we don't know, I suspect the anticipated political capital the WALabor Premier hopes to harvest is of greater importance & any & all glitches go behind a departmental shroud to allow the Premier to crow more freely.

Now consider the Twitter exchange below between Labor's Leader of the Upper House Sue Ellery MLC & Labor Lower House MP Jessica Stojkovski MLA and ask why the hell is it that the Legislative Council doing its job as a House of Review, with the Government lodging 18 amendments itself is viewed as "truly an affront to our democracy" ???
Prior to entering Parliament at the last election she worked as a town planner...which serves an important function in society without having any knowledge about democracy at all I guess. Such is the life of a Socialist MP perhaps.

No the legislation has some bad glitches, but democracy won, rubber stamps didn't.

Jessica, please read up on democracy, because I don't think it means what you think it means...

Should also add, there's 2 Australian states (nearly) 6 US states and 6 other countries where VAD type laws have been passed and are working (but not entirely problem free). This was important milestone legislation, it should have always taken as long as it takes...not met some arbitrary deadline that suits the Premiers press release timelines. It would have been a disaster had the original bill been passed without amendment because here's the kicker, all the missing safeguards, all the required changes would have to be done by departmental bureaucrats not the Parliament...or not done at all & we wouldn't know until a serious incident hits the press.

Overseeing those bureaucrats would be ministers. The Law would have a parliamentary framework but the actual facets of law would have been dictated by a political party, the WA Labor Party. They would have got it installed to suit a political timeline & the details would be sorted out later. That's still going to happen unfortunately, but less so.

But note the potential political mess that was avoided. Even though this Bill has some serious glitches, so bad it caused a Labor MP in favour of VAD to vote against the Bill there's another greater pair of issues.

Labor's conscience vote isn't mush more than a faux conscience voted evidenced by the pressure Adele Farina MLC has copped.

More importantly, had the Premier got his way, had the original Bill been passed without amendment then most of the acts of actual law making would have been done by bureaucrats in Government Departments overseen by WALabor Ministers INSTEAD OF HAVING ANY RIGOUROUS PARLIAMENTRY SCRUTINY.

WATCH THIS SPACE, THIS IS A VERY CONCERNING EXAMPLE OF THE GRADUAL SIDE STEPPING OF THE PARLIAMENT WHEN LAW MAKING. ONCE THIS DOOR IS OPENED, IT WILL DESCEND INTO A SPIRALLING HELL AND THE IMMENSE DAMAGE IS INCALCULABLE.

LABOR WANTS TO MAKE LAWS VIA THE DEPARTMENTS UNDER THEIR CONTROL AWAY FROM THE PARLIAMENT AND THE HOUSE OF REVIEW. 

Stolen Guns - What to do...

Not that hard but seems to be if you're the WA Government. I often wonder do they hope for more incidents so they can slowly phase out all legal firearms ownership or are they just out to lunch like so many other issues they've either ignored or botched when they did finally attend to them?

Barry's Firearms has been broken into twice, once that allegedly included deprivation of liberty & assault. It was also stated that the security at that Gun Shop exceeded the required Government standards.

Well in the early hours of this morning Claremont Firearms in Yangebup was broken into. No word on what was stolen and the shop is closed today as they help police with their investigation.

Is there a solution? Yes there possibly is but it requires some brains & fortitude so legal firearms owners & lawful Gun Shops aren't adversely impacted. Yes its easy.

1) Introduce a permanent "Smart Amnesty" - One where un-licenced firearms are handed into gun dealers. Those handing them in can remain anonymous if they so choose. They can then be sorted. Those that are un-registerable can then be handed into Police for destruction. Those of serviceable order can be then sold to approved firearms owners by the normal application process, whether they be Cat A, B, C, H or even a Collector's Licence.

2) Because gun shops don't buy the firearms that are handed in, they get cost recovery in any sale. The incentive to hand firearms in...simple.
Change the penalty range for theft, possession, possession with intent to sell or supply of firearms to attract a 15 year jail sentence (Minimum) with each firearm being a separate offence with a separate penalty. If you steal or possess a stolen or illegal firearm 15 years. If its 15 firearms then 150 years, you're going to jail for the duration of your natural born life.

This then increases the safety of securely stored firearms in private homes or gun shops without even altering the already compliant storage they already have.

Example - Kim's grandfather came home from WW2 with a captured German Luger 9mm. Its not licenced, its been in the family since the war. Kim has several options, do nothing and risk a hefty jail term, surrender it to a gun shop for sale or destruction via the WA Police (at the Gun Shops discretion & profit margin) or Kim can surrender it pending an application with either normal Cat H licence or a Collectors Licence. If Kim meets the criteria and has an approved application then Kim gets to own the pistol 100% legally. If Kim fails the application process the Gun Shop can on sell it to a collector or approved purchaser or it can be handed into WA Police for destruction.

Net result, we lessen the gun black market, we lessen the unknown illegal stock pile, we destroy unsafe and/or unregisterable firearms & we convert those usable, collectable firearms to legally owned, fully registered firearms.

The state government is not forking out big dollars for illegal firearms in a buy back and gun shops get cost recovery whilst lessening the likelihood of theft of firearms or possession of stolen/illegal firearms.

There's then no further unfair and detrimental impact on those law abiding firearm owners who are actually doing the right thing & we get guns off the streets & target criminals

Its sensible, its smart, its effective which is probably why the WA Labor Government won't do it.

Dear Mr McGowan & Minister Roberts...it really is this simple. Please, get onto it

Gender Diversity on Boards & in the Workplace

Wow what a cluster fluff of opinion & little data but lots of aims & targets.

Are Boards & Workplaces better off with better or more even diversity?

What's better off (what improves) and what exactly do you mean by diversity?

Under law you can't discriminate on someone's attributes. Their gender, race, religion, political view, sexual orientation, marital status. And for good reason, its unfair to.

Having said that, some workplaces are gender dominated by men or by women. That's life.

Yes the majority of truck drivers or anything in the transport industry are men by a margin of roughly 4 to 1. In that industry, performance is key and whilst men dominate in numbers, the percentage or good vs bad operators is probably the same for both genders. It makes little discernable difference.

Healthcare & social services, roughly identical ratio but its women who are in the majority. Again the percentage of good vs not good is probably the same so again little or no discernable difference.

More men that women choose transport, more women than men choose health. Its a choice.

Studies have shown that men are more likely to choose overtime & working away whilst women are more likely to be drawn to flexible hours, less likely to work away from home, family & friends. These are neither weaknesses or strengths, they're just the way it goes and people can decide what they do.

So is it proven that an equal number of men & women on a board leads to greater benefits to the board & the company?

Well what studies there are, its pretty inconclusive. What is known at this point is the most effective & successful boards have the most effective & successful directors, CEOs, processes & support staff.

The most effective & successful boards usually have Director Performance reviews to assess the directors & to identify required skills that are missing or areas a particular director needs to build on.

Because effective & successful boards have Director Education Programmes tailored to the whole board & the individual directors. To build their skillset & ramp board performance.

The most effective & successful boards also assess their CEO and the running of the board meeting, the meeting papers and have well fitting policies & procedures as well as good governance. A board's job is to bring strategic thinking, the management is to install it by using their strategic planning.

The most effective & successful boards also have good strategy formulation and monitoring systems.

So far none of these things are gender specific or gender slanted.

The most effective & successful boards probably know that perception is a thing and right now gender diversity is a real big thing. They also know they need to work hard to get the best directors of the female crop. There aren't as many female directors as male. In fact the rough estimate is there are 2 male directors to every female directors.

So if the competency is the roughly the same in percentage for each gender then the pool of really good female directors is roughly half what the really good male directors is. Its just a percentage  based on the scale of the numbers so if you're an effective & successful board you know having some gender diversity is a good look & if you get the best female directors you're no worse off, possibly depending on skill sets better off...and your shareholders perceive the gender balance to be great.

So if a board is all male or all female it probably makes very little difference to director skills.

But the best boards will get the best female directors.

The rights and responsibilities of a director are the same whether you're male or female.

You legal duties, your fiduciary duty all the same whether you're male or female.

If you're a nurse, a plumber, a director, a pilot, a teacher, a CEO your performance is down to you, not your gender.

Should we be setting targets for gender diversity in transport, education, labouring, health, parliament, senior management or boards?

Some strong views out there but for me, its a no. We should provide equal opportunity and allow people to sink or swim on their own performance. We should tell people they can pursue any career they want but if they don't meet the required standards in that field then its probably not the job for them & they should look at other work, other careers. Not everyone can be a miner or a MP or a shearer or receptionist. Gender is not really a big deal, personal performance is.

In broad terms these are some established & widely accepted board aspects, none of which are entirely gender specific when it comes to effectiveness & success...

The Board of Directors is a control governance mechanism, aimed to monitor managerial activities so as to mitigate agency costs (Jensen, 1993), and to set the strategic objectives which should orientate the course of the company (Hillman and Dalziel, 2003). The Board's supervisory tasks include: monitoring the CEO, and the implementation of the firms long term strategy, firing and hiring the CEO and assessing and rewarding the CEO/top managers of the firm (Hillman and Dalziel, 2003).

So if you want more women on your board (or in parliament) go for it. Get the very best women you can, because you should get the best people you can, just know you may have a smaller pool of outstanding directors in the female camp purely because of scale. If you don't care about gender & just want the very best director you can find, going solely by skills and experience, go for it. Either way you'll be ok. But if you go by a quota, well someone's getting the job because of their gender and someone is missing out because of their gender and skillset aside, you put gender first.

What Society has to determine is, what is gender because to some there's 200+ genders to some there's an infinite number of genders and to many of us there's just male, female and in 1.7% of the population intersex.

Now if you chase gender diversity how do you manage with 200+ or infinite number of genders?

How do you manage with male, female, transmale, transfemale or those who have physical attributes of one gender but "identify" wholly as the other traditional gender? Now if we're talking the workplace of Professional Sport, do we abolish all gender sports and have all sports of mixed genders or do we have male & female sports or do we allow someone who was a man for 25 years, now a transwoman or gender reassigned woman compete in women's football, cage fighting, weight lifting?

Feminism Today...I had to ask some questions

So where is feminism today? Its a bit of a mine field for some. No harm in asking, nothing helpful in not knowing

Everyone can have a view, but apparently some think if you're a man you cannot have an opinion on it and other people say a man can have an opinion on it.

Some are of the view a man can be a feminist & some say they cannot.

Then the minefield gets flooded with petrol because some men claim to be "male feminists" and some women claim they actually don't support feminism.

So it gets tricky but sometimes its easier with some than with others. Sooooo…I asked 2 ladies I've come to know online. Both I've never met in person. Both are straight shooters, or as they old saying goes "Good old fashioned no sh!t sheilas"

One is a younger than me person of a conservative political leaning. One is an older than me person and is of a very left political leaning. I figure there's bound to be truth somewhere in between them.

So I asked the following,

"How accurate do you think this is...the Feminist Movement has been seen in 3 waves...

1) Enemy of unfairness then...
2) Enemy of men...then to now where’s beginning to be
3) Enemy of men & women but a Chardonnay Socialist’s joyful playground. "

The younger conservative said "Basically. Great Summary"

The older Left leaner said "Sadly bang f**kin on. Turned into a no win tribal sh*t show, in fact itll probably get worse from here on in for everyone"

Well that threw me for 6, I thought, well I dunno what I thought they'd say. Guess I was expecting 2 very passionate, very clear to them views from their respectively different political viewpoints & I'd see points I never considered. I was expecting long deep answers.
Both cut to the chase, knew exactly what they thought long before I put the question to them

I didn't know if there is or was 3 waves or 20 or 1, I just gave a personal view to prompt them to sit up, think & share. I wasn't expecting commonality between them & certainly wasn't thinking they'd think similar to me.

Yes I did ask the older Left Leaner what she thought I meant by Chardonnay Socialist and pleasantly surprised me. She said...

 "Chardonnay Socialists are a thing alright, but we just call them dogs. I've seen you post about them a lot and got to tell you they're not from the left or the right. They're from their own pirate ship making whatever noises they need to so they can fill up for free. They're not crusty old school right wads in nor True Believers or any of the good people in between. They only love themselves, they're dogs."

She went onto say that not all so called feminists were Chardonnay Socialists but old school feminism is really only needed in Asia, the Middle East and a few other places. She added "But it'll get you ****ing killed quick smart in those places and no one bats an eye"

The next question I was going to ask was to do with Misogyny & Misandry but don't think there's any point. My view is they're actually the same thing.

Misogyny = Sh!t people doing Sh!t things to other people who really don't deserve it.
Misandry  = Sh!t people doing Sh!t things to other people who really don't deserve it.

I'm thinking they might just agree with that too.

There probably was a reason for 2 separate gender specific terms once, maybe there still is but to me they're both unacceptable because they're both Sh!t people doing Sh!t things to other people who really don't deserve it.

Kind off killed of any chances of this being a long blog entry. Maybe I should just stay calm & remember its pretty cool that I found myself in full agreeance with 2 politically polar opposite ladies on feminism...and maybe all three of us are right, maybe all three of us are wrong. Seems like I was the only one caught out surprised. I thought I knew, they knew it.

I'm good with that.

(I might chuck the link of this to the 2 ladies & ask if they want to add a comment below or if they want to remain nameless I can copy/paste just below instead of the comment section)

Does your board need female directors & how many?

Yes, odd question that will immediately set up for sandbags either way for some but it is a pertinent question. Do women think & therefore decide differently on matter than men?

Well there's quite a few studies that we can cite & people often do except often the studies chosen can be chosen upon the conclusions & not the methodology. Its a tricky path.

But does a board do better with a female influence and if some is good, is more better.
Yes.
And No.

In the case of a board, directors are confined to act within boundaries, these boundaries are oblivious to a person's gender. A board is skill based or should be. You'd hope you can have at the higher levels, higher levels of required skills in certain fields. Legal, financial, strategic are just some of the angles directors have to confront...in the best interests of the shareholders otherwise known as their "Fiduciary Duty".
The emphasis is deliberate yet shouldn't be required but...it is.
The perpetuity of the company and the best interests of the shareholders or members is key but sometimes forgotten. This aspect is in the Corporations Act.
All very no gender centric.

But do women & men think differently and if so how much is nature & how much is nurture?
Yes and we don't know definitively. We know the effect of nature is not zero, the effect of nurture or culture or upbringing or any other social influence is not zero. We know not all men think exactly the same, we know all women don't think exactly the same and we know corporate psychopaths can be male or female. We know altruistic people can be male or female and we know embezzlers can be of either gender too.

So are there advantages of having women on boards? Yes, most likely. Having a genuine spread of individuals with life skills, board skills is paramount though and if you don't have women (or men) on your board right now don't stress unless you think it's "just a bad look", If your board is operating well, if your business is operating well, if you're meeting your targets, your compliance requirements and you're enjoying growth, get on with things.

It is possible to have a successful board that is all male, all female or a slanted or even dead equal mix. It is a historical fact, that most company directors in the last 50 years have predominantly been men & its a current fact that this is changing. Nowadays women are applying for jobs they may not have historically done in large numbers once. This is not a bad thing.

What is a bad thing is if a board should think it needs a "coupla gals on board" to meet a pub test. What is a bad thing is if a board, or a company at its AGM should think that 50:50 gender balance on the board is a desirable outcome.

What should be the aim is the perpetuity of the organisation & the benefit and best interests of the shareholders...the owners. The Corporations Act does not view things as a Gender playing field and I don't think responsible boards or shareholders should either. If they find a good director, with a good business background, a good board history and in possession of particular skills in an area the board is possibly deficient in that are identified as required...consider grabbing that director irrespective of their gender.

Fact is less women apply for board positions today, yes more now than ever before but it is predominantly a male domain. There's a number of reasons for this, a number of non discriminatory reasons and a number of biased reasons why. Know the difference, then fix the fault. There are less women studying their MBA yet more women studying that than probably ever before. As a result I'd expect to see less female CEOs & less female CFOs...and less of them going onto to a life away from management & a career in boards. That is just one variable and its not sexist, its part of the entire equation.

Are women equal to men? Under law yes. In fact 2 people with the same skills, with the same experience in the same job must be paid the same. irrespective of their race, religion, gender anything else. But some get paid more because they've been in the job longer, some work longer, some get extra skills & advance their positions. But it is illegal to benefit someone or penalise someone purely on the basis of their gender.

Women probably do in a very general sense think differently than men, they may be wired differently than men but I don't think its an earth shattering day night differences, its possibly far more nuanced and it's largely rendered immaterial under the Corporations Act.

So seek out good directors and ignore their gender. It will be, by & large, irrelevant. Treat men & women equally by ignoring their gender & focusing on the skills, knowledge and experience they have, what deficiencies you board is trying to fix and press on.

It is odd we now have a point where if a person identifies as something they are that something. A sort of bizarre subjective truth. A man identifying as a women is accepted by many as being a woman. The change appears to be a mix of surgery, prescription chemicals and mind set. That used to be man is now a woman. So does that "new" woman think like a woman now?
Do the genders actually have differences we should celebrate or is it just mind set & surgery that separates men & women? Can't really have it both ways.

I think there are areas where gender is irrelevant and certain workplaces like the board room is clearly one of them. Other workplaces still need segregation. The extreme example, elite level rugby league or AFL. Or weight lifting or other Olympic competitions.

I believe there will always be more men in the field of interstate trucking, brick laying, plumbing and general labouring jobs. There will always be more women in nursing and teaching. These things are not negatives, they are "just are".

I do think it odd that we must have gender balance in boards & the parliaments, 50:50 as soon as possible but while this aim is applied to high paying, high profile white collar jobs the same gender balance is not applied to bricklaying. Will you new house have better walls if 50% of the bricklayers during construction were male and 50% were female? At some point we will have to ignore the gender balance & just get on with the job and focus solely on the equal opportunity being presented and then the performance being the telling judgement point.

When I get on board a jet plane I don't care if the pilot is male or female, I just care & trust they can take off, fly & land without incident. Their gender will play no role in their ability and if it does, then that's not a gender issue, its a performance issue.

I worry that good well meaning people will over look a vital point. By having a quota or worse still and inferred need to get people into a job due to their gender they overlook the fact that someone is missing out on a job due to their gender.

MBAs are a respected degree, but a MBA really only gets you your first job. Its the performance of your first job that will get you your second job. Your MBA is a required milestone, its not a guarantee of a long successful career. You need an MBA to have the OPPORTUNITY to apply & hopefully get a job, it should never be a seen as a God given right to a guaranteed outcome.
Life does not have equal outcomes, but we should all have equal opportunities.

In citing some studies of men vs women thinking we risk creating or adding to existing neurosexism.

No Board Needs That. It Needs People Appropriate Skills Performing Well.

https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html

You choose, you pay, not "you choose & I pay"

If you want to use drugs I'd tell you don't. Its a bad, appallingly bad choice. Using meth/ice, cocaine, heroin, cannabis etc is not a wise choice. Sniffing petrol, glues or acetone products are not wise choices. Despite what anyone tells you they are the worst of bad choices, however good or bad your life is, taking these and any of a much longer list of drugs is going to make your life worse, inextricably worse. Many will eventually will end your life in the worst possible, most undignified manner. Some will turn to crime, theft and/or prostitution to raise funds for their addiction. Others will become dealers and peddle death & misery to others to pay for their addiction.

If you use drugs, go for it. I'll tell you not to, I'll try to talk you into getting smart & clean but if you're determined to stay on drugs I cannot physically force you against your will to get off drugs. If you can take drugs & be of no burden to your loved ones, your family & friends or a cost to the economy, the society, the law & order/health budget then its your choice.

It is undemocratic and ethically unfair for me to pay for your addiction as a tax payer. If you turn to crime or become unproductive as an employer or worse choose to stay on unemployment benefits to keep your addiction going you're unfairly forcing me to be one of your enablers. I do not want to be partly responsible for you staying on drugs. Yes, if there's a good chance rehab will get you clean then as a tax payer I'm willing to pay for that. I am not liable to help you stay on drugs.

Have you seen this person? Here's a parallel. Extreme body modifications. Your choice.

Image: Maria Jose Cristerna, known as 'Vampire Woman', holds the Guinness World Record for being the woman with more changes in her body in America (JOHAN ORDONEZ/AFP/GettyImages)

Now I don't know this person pictured or anything about them but bluntly, what they've done to themselves is their business, their choice. I don't have to be a fan of it, I can be reviled by but its their choice & I won't enforce my thoughts or will upon them.
Similarly I would expect such people to pay for their own life choices. If they can get a job or not be a burden on society that's great, but if they've made themselves unemployable then a full pension to subsidise their "life choice" their cultural creation then its not my responsibility to foot the bill they create. If I go to a pub, have 2 beers and steak sandwich I pay for it. I don't do a runner & make the pub subsidise my nourishment, I don't forward the bill to the government. I pay for my own choices and ensure it doesn't affect others.

If you take drugs, illegal/illicit drugs its a reasonable expectation of a wise society to help you make wiser life decisions & assist you get off drugs. But if you steal, or break any law to fund your addiction you have to go to jail.
Decriminalising drugs won't pay for your drugs so the ill effects on society remain.

Its probably time to build a special drug jail. One that specialises in rehab whilst incarcerated. Where detox & remapping an addicts life with both medical & mental health experts is part of the daily regiment. Where you stay until you're clean and recalibrated or you've served your time for you crimes, whichever comes first. And yes, physical activities like sport, exercise & physical work are a must. Religious instruction to be available to those who choose it.

If you re-offend you should come back for double whatever your sentence is to increase your chances of getting your life in order.

As a member of society I'm happy to be part of the solution and pay for it. The benefits are there for the individual and society as a whole. It is not fair that we as a society pay & suffer for the addiction of others.

Good Advice For Getting Along vs Good Advice For Doing Right

Regarding the title...Yes at times they're different. There are times when standing up for a right thing or a another possibly unpopular person who's right, it can cause you to not get along...but its the right thing to do. Sadly that's life. You have a choice, sell out or do the right thing. I expect no one has a perfect record & expect there's some who's seemingly perfect record is probably just a high percentage score. Even if that is sadly the case, then we're left with the same dilemma, what do you want to do,

I've been lucky, I can think of a number of good people, family & friends that were kind enough to give me some very good advice. Two shearers about 15-18 years old of me gave me a ton I still lean on. A long since passed on gent, who was the town drunk but even at his drunkest he remain a kind, thoughtful gent. He gave advice that stuck. As one other friend said, good advice is there, not always spoken or given, learn or lose.


I recall reading Edward DeBono's books in the 1980s & 90s, some were brilliant & should be required reading. Since then I've leaned more on the Ben Shapiro & Jordan Peterson angles (and no they don't/won't always agree) that go with facts and data. The idea that its about "Facts Not Feelings, Facts Don't Care About Your Feelings" resonates. Its very true. Its why I was good at debating in high school but hated it. It seemed you could be totally wrong & still win the debate. You need skills backed with selective facts and you can win with debating & THAT is the main problem with discourse today. What De Bono called "arrogance arguing".
The example I usually give is imagine a debate where the topic is "That Breathing Oxygen is Bad For You". You're on the negative side & you've come up with a lot of damaging things that can happen breathing the air. Your opposition is doing nearly as good as you, they're definitely trailing but they have missed one crucial point you are very aware of. No oxygen means you'll die so breathing oxygen is very bad for you.

Conundrum - They are missing a fact that is crucial to the debate, but will cause you to lose. Arrogance arguing is the idea that you don't mention it, that you don't help your opposition, that you win.

And that is the sum total of lots of discourse today. Winning & losing.
Shapiro & Peterson, who don't always agree & I might disagree with them at times too have a different approach. Facts, not winning is important. There is no personal victory to be had, there is no threat of personal defeat, its not a competition, it must be what the facts & data present. Nothing wrong with learning you were wrong, the almost morally wrong part is not correcting or change your stance when its shown to be wrong.

Its Not About You. Leave You Out Of It. By all means add your views, that will help drag you and a differing person closer to the point of conclusion but its not a race, its not a competition its dual pursuit, to get what's right.

Be warned, there's side affects of doing this. By sticking to cold facts & being able to give and take as facts emerge & either add to your position or correct your position.
 YOU ARE NOW A DANGEROUS PERSON WITH DANGEROUS IDEAS.

You will cop personal attacks, ignore them.

You will be regarded as a scary person, threatening and aggressive.

You will have people say you're a bully or mean.

If the other/s are leftist or use leftist tactics you will see "triggerings", claims of victimhood, accusations of aggressiveness. These complaints might have some truth to them, you might come across as aggressive but equally possible some feel pressured into a corner by fact, truth & reason where they feel confined with no where to go.

There is the thing, you can have your own opinion but you cannot have your own truth. Truth is not yours & the position you take in a debate is not YOURS, it must be the unowned truth, the unowned facts, the unowned data. It must not ever be about you.
Maintain that & you can still be labeled a bully, a thug, mean, aggressive or unreasonable even if you're quietly, politely spoken, not getting personal, just presenting facts or asking for data to support a claim.

DON'T BE RUDE, STICK TO FACTS NOT FEELING, DON'T GET PERSONAL, STICK WITH DATA & KNOW YOU COULD STILL GET LABELED A BULLY OR AGRESSIVE BY SOME.

In that case, anyone calling you a bully or aggressive the answer is simple. Never ever engage with them in any way alone. Not email, twitter a face to face discussion, phone...nothing. Soon as you hear a person has labelled you, keep witnesses at hand always. We're in an age where people have made allegations about people with views they oppose as a last desperate act of defiance or spite. If you're guilty then you deserve what consequences are due, but if it isn't true protect yourself.

Some people use the tactic of get the person & not the ethical "play the ball not the man"

Facts not feelings, facts don't care about your feelings. Its not about winning, its about what's right.
That's the basis of a dangerous person with dangerous ideas. Doing the right thing with facts.

Current Barnaby Joyce things sparks side debate

...Or does it? It should.

I see Barnaby Joyce has been involved recently on the Abortion Issue in NSW & it's generated some negative feedback online but not the negativity you'd think. Well maybe so.

Many replies online were memes, pictures of beetroot or calling him a hypocrite for some of his actions in his personal life and some even became contradictory.

One was "its not a moral issue, its a health issue so he should stay out of it" then another poster stated that such a moral issue could do with a hypocrite such as Barnaby & leave it to everyone else.
 Now on that space you'd think one might begin discourse on the other as to why it IS or ISN'T a moral issue seeing that's the core basis of their respective argument, but no. Both were 'get Barnaby out of the debate', out of the issue for different reasons...so despite being highly contradictory. I suspect although both find the others concept UNTRUE the truth is not of any importance if its "Get Barnaby"

As for it being a health or moral issue, decide for yourself the problem is due to popularism people have gone after a person or personality not after rigorous objective discourse. The main problem is this, the Bill has been deemed by some as being a ram through process without sufficient public consultation and being rammed through as it has there's been no ability to apply an Amendments.
That, no matter what the legislation is just happens to be bad government.

Some have claimed its able to allow "gender based abortion" where parent or parents could terminate a baby if it's gender isn't that which is preferred by the parent/s and made late term abortions possible.
Others have claimed it does not that it's only regarding 22 weeks and earlier. That Barnaby was wrong in mentioning pregnancies that were 26 weeks or more, that he was lying, that he should stay out.
Again this is popularism driven, it is not "Facts Not Feelings"
The proposed legislation makes it very possible to have an abortion at 26 weeks, you just need 2 doctors to say yes. This means yes with the effort of Doctor Shopping a person can actually terminate an unborn baby at 26 weeks and the reason remains private between the doctor and patient.

So Barnaby has raised his head above the trench line and taken a position. Whether I find him agreeable or not is irrelevant. Whether I like what he says or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is "Facts Not Feelings" - Is he correct in what he's saying.

Now several people have claimed this is issue is being fought against by the Religious Hard Right, or the Religious Right with more than a few stating we must maintain a separation of church & state. Thing is lets apply the "Facts Not Feelings" filter and look again.

We have separation of Church & State now & in this country we always have. Australia is not, nor has it ever been a Theocracy or Caliphate. Every single person in this country whether they're Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Humanist, Agnostic, Nihilist, Utilitarian Atheist or member of the Church of Klingon, everyone has a Worldview. Lets repeat that with context.

1) Everyone without exception has a worldview
2) Our Parliaments and Government Instruments are Secular
3) No one should be exempt from our parliament, our government, our democratic process on the basis of their worldview.
4) The Church is not running the show, not any religion.

Barnaby's view can be accepted or rejected, you have a choice. He's a member of Parliament & if he has a strong view he can take a view, raise his voice & if he chooses make a stand that might help or hurt him politically. I'd rather any MP came out with their view, even if I opposed it, rather than staying silent because they've been told to by some electors or they're thinking about their safest bet of re-election.

Some have entered the fray because they are decidedly ANTI Barnaby Joyce...and in a free country that's their choice, their prerogative. Point is you can have your own stance, your own position, your own view but you cannot have your own facts and your own truth.

If its a moral issue and someone has no ability to comment because of immoral actions in their own life in the past you firstly have to declare which moral standard you're using to make the moral judgement. Secondly you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who is morally perfect so in order to keep one person out, you'll be denying anyone including yourself the moral authority to comment as well.

All this is a bit immaterial when you realise there is such a vastly differing accepted thought on WHEN life begins. For some its at the fertilisation of the egg, for others its an arbitrary time & others its exiting the womb & being slapped on the butt. For some, its when awareness begins and not before. That's the Utilitarian view which is utterly dangerous which then means as soon as someone enters a coma, their can be terminated.

Worldviews guide people but at the end of the day Abortion isn't about health unless it threatens the mothers and/or child's life. That's health issue.

Its not a form of contraception & should be seen as that.

Then there's the heavy version, a termination is the ending, the switching the switch off, its snuffing out the candle, its prevent an unborn from becoming born. You cannot turn it off if it isn't turn on.
When does life start and when are the normally afforded human rights afforded? When personhood is attained? When is that? Many deliberately avoid that altogether.

A golden child of the left who is also a well known ex US President said life begins at conception and seems so when you consider this...

conception

/kənˈsɛpʃ(ə)n/

noun

noun: conception; plural noun: conceptions

1. 
   

   the action of conceiving a child or of one being conceived

contraception

/kɒntrəˈsɛpʃ(ə)n/

noun

noun: contraception

1. the deliberate use of artificial methods or other techniques to prevent pregnancy as a consequence of sexual intercourse. The major forms of artificial contraception are: barrier methods, of which the commonest is the condom or sheath; the contraceptive pill, which contains synthetic sex hormones which prevent ovulation in the female; intrauterine devices, such as the coil, which prevent the fertilized ovum from implanting in the uterus; and male or female sterilization.

  Note the difference, "Con" and "Contra" are all preventing pregnancy, not terminating one.
And all of this has nothing to do with whether or not you hate Barnaby Joyce or love him.
Its Facts not Feelings and it will draw savage criticism or personal attacks often freely without thought, fact or regard for proper discourse and critical thinking.

Support or oppose whatever position you like on whatever subject or issue arises. Just avoid being intellectually corrupt or deliberately fact free in order to win your point.

Its not about Barnaby. Never was, never will be. Support whichever view or position you like, but the church & state argument doesn't hold up. Morality of any person on either side isn't applicable. Only facts matter.

Facts not Feelings.