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.